p S. HRG. 103-^75 V THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1993 Y 4.L 11/4: S. HRG. 103-475 The School-to-Uork Opportunities ftc... HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE, ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1361 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES SYSTEMS IN ALL STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SEPTEMBER 28 AND OCTOBER 14, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources JUIV2 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-136 CC WASHINGTON : 1994 7 199* For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office ^MO Pftfi Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044040-8 S. HRG. 103-475 THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1993 Y4.L 11/4: S. HRG. 103-475 The SchooI-to-Uork Opportunities Ac. HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1361 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES SYSTEMS IN ALL STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SEPTEMBER 28 AND OCTOBER 14, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources JUN2 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-136 CC WASHINGTON : 1994 7 m<, ^CtagiWHi For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office fO/Jfyr** Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044040-8 COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut DAN COATS, Indiana PAUL SIMON, Illinois JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire TOM HARKIN, Iowa STROM THURMOND, South Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAVE DURENBERGER, Minnesota PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota HARRIS WOFFORD, Pennsylvania NICK Littlefield, Staff Director and Chief Counsel SUSAN K. HATTAN, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity PAUL SIMON, Illinois, Chairman TOM HARKIN, Iowa STROM THURMOND, South Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland DAN COATS, Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRIS WOFFORD, Pennsylvania ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, Kansas (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) BRIAN KENNEDY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director TODD AtwatER, Minority Counsel (ID ■ CONTENTS STATEMENTS Tuesday, September 28, 1993 Page Hatfield, Hon. Mark 0., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 1 Simon, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 7 Wofford, Hon. Harris, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania 9 Riley, Richard, Secretary of Education, U.S, Department of Education Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina 14 Durenberger, Hon. Dave, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota 14 Pell, Hon. Claiborne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 17 Reich, Robert, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor 18 Dow, Jr., John, president, National Academy Foundation, New York, NY; Ellen R. Williams, senior vice president, American Express Co., New York, NY; Michelle Yhap, senior, Richmond Hill High School, New York, NY; and Richard Graziano, director, Academy of Travel and Tourism, and teach- er, New York City Public Schools, New York, NY 23 Adler, Laurel, superintendent, East San Grabiel Valley Regional Occupational Program, West Covins, CA; Robert T. Jones, corporate consultant, Washing- ton, DC; and Linda G. Morra, Director, Education and Employment Issue Area, Human Resource Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; accom- panied by Noemi Friedlander and Sigurd R. Nilsen 34 STATEMENTS Thursday, October 14, 1993 Simon, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 43 Durenberger, Hon. Dave, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota 44 Todd, Bruce, Mayor, Austin, TX, and Edward Pauly, senior research associ- ate, Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., New York, NY 47 Kolberg, Bill, cochair, Business Coalition on Workforce Development, Wash- ington, DC; Rudy Oswald, director, Department of Economic Research, American Federation of Labor, Washington, DC; Paul Cole, member, Task Force on School-To-Work Transition, American Federation of Teachers, Al- bany, NY; and Thomas Musser, Tri-M Corp., Kennett Square, PA 58 Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 69 Davidson, Kirsten, Trans Cen, Inc., Rockville, MD, accompanied by Carolyn Post; David Johnson, National Transition Network, University of Min- nesota, Minneapolis, MN; Paul Weckstein, co-director, Center for Law and Education, Washington, DC; Donna Milgram, director, Nontraditional Em- ployment Training Project, Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC; and Richard Apling, specialist in social legislation, Congressional Re- search Service, Washington, DC 70 APPENDIX Articles, publications, letters, etc.: Statements: Richard W. Riley and Robert B. Reich — Responses to questions of Sen- ators Simon and Durenberger John Dow, Jr - 93 Ellen Randolph Williams 95 (III) IV Page Statements — Continued Laurel Adler 96 Robert T. Jones 98 Linda G. Morra 99 Bruce Todd 104 Edward Pauly 105 William H. Kolberg Ill Rudy Oswald 115 Paul Cole 121 W. Thomas Musser 123 Carolyn Post and Kirsten Davidson 124 David. R. Johnson 124 Donna Milgram 128 Paul Weckstein 135 Richard Apling 139 Lawrence Perlman 142 National Education Association 144 John E. Jacob 146 Gordon Raley 147 John Austin 149 International Brotherhood of Teamsters 154 Girls Incorporated 156 Erik Beyer 159 Nancye M. Combs 160 Stephen Denby 164 James F. Clayborne, Jr 166 GASC Technology Center 174 Letters: To Jon Schroeder, office of Senator Durenberger, from Tom Triplett, executive director, Minnesota Business Partnership, dated Aug. 30, 1993 176 To Senator Durenberger, from Minnesota Business Partnership, dated Sept. 28, 1993 178 THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1993 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Paul Simon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Simon, Pell, Wofford, and Thurmond. Senator Simon. The hearing will come to order. My apologies first of all to the Secretaries and my colleague Sen- ator Hatfield. I will postpone making my own opening statement here, because we are going to be facing a couple of votes in about a half hour on the floor of the Senate. And if the two Secretaries do not object too strenuously, I am going to call on my colleague Senator Hatfield first for an opening statement. We are pleased to have him as a cosponsor of this legislation and pleased to have you here as a witness. STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK O. HATFIELD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Senator Hatfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Durenberger. First, I consider it a distinct honor to be in company with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor. And I want to say that Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich certainly are giving tremendous leadership in an area that is badly needed in this country. . Mr. Chairman. I would like to have my full statement placed in the record, and then I will highlight it. Senator Simon. We will enter it in the record. Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the United States is the only industrialized country in the world that lacks a comprehensive system to help our young people learn the knowl- edge, skills, abilities and information to move into the labor market and to be an effective person in that labor market for a career in that labor market. Now, lest one identify this as purely an educational problem, it is not. This is now a global matter. It is not just a local, State or national issue alone. It is a global issue, because being the only Na- tion that does not have this kind of system or network, we are not maintaining a competitive role in the world marketsplace. (1) I would like to also focus on the fact that most of our educational programs in the secondary level are geared to the so-called college prep. When I launched the community college system in my State many years ago, I took notice of the educational snobbery that had grown up to infect our curriculum at the secondary level, so that those who were not preparing to go to college would end up in "the shop" in the back of the high school I attended. Ours was as brick building and the shop was as grav cement building looking some- what like a prison. Tnat was the kind of delineation we made and we have not changed that much over the years. Yet, when you consider that only 15 percent of those who enter college today in America complete the baccalaureate program and take even, say, 6 years — rather than in just a 4-year period, the so- called normal period of matriculation — -but for a 6-year period fol- lowing high school, and then you look at the other end of that scale and you find that people today in America, adults in their late 20's, the statistic that I have seen most recently is that 50 percent of the adults in their late 20's have not yet found steady jobs. So I think we ought to not only look at this problem from the human point of view, but also the domestic economic, and global. I want to also indicate that in my full statement I have outlined the so-called Oregon program that has taken some very bold steps to try to correct this problem, and we have, a rich history in at- tempting to address the problem faced by the noncollege-bound stu- dent and their educational opportunities. Let met also indicate that the legislation that we have before us does focus on the noncollege-bound student, and it also takes some very major steps in taking the whole political system and reviewing the regulatory parts of the Federal system as it relates to States and local governments. If the Senator recalls, I have sponsored the so-called Edflex bill, which will give more flexibility in the educational institutions. I am glad to see that this same feature is a part of this bill that I am honored to cosponsor of this bill under the requests of the Sec- retary of Labor and the Secretary of Education. I think we also understand that this bill increases our focus the on interdependence between the educational programs and the labor market or the interdependence of those two, from school to job transition, and that to me is the guts of the whole matter. Recently, I had the GAO launch a study that I hope will be com- pleted shortly on the overlapping and duplication among the 151 — Mr. Chairman, 151 — education and training programs currently run by 14 different agencies of the Federal Government. With our timber workers in great distress in my part of the coun- try, we are especially aware of these programs and the multiplicity, the overlapping, and this bill I think does much to at least bring a sharper focus to the Federal role. I would like to also make a comparison on the practicality of the current labor force in the market. Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill that is total. This bill is a major step, a giant step, but there are parts of this bill that I hope maybe we can modify or at least add to, which will address the current labor force. Let me delineate between the bill's focus of the prospective labor force and what we face today in the current labor force. To best il- lustrate that point, today the Japanese worker in the automobile assembly business, he gets 315.5 hours of training as a newly hired automobile worker. That compares to 45.7 hours in the United States. So we are even at this very moment falling behind in the competitiveness for efficiency and high skills. Last year, Senator Kennedy and I introduced a bill which was the result of the study made by former Secretary of Labor Marshall under President Carter and former Secretary of Labor Brock under President Reagan. The bill that we introduced was the High-Skills Competitive Workforce Act of 1991. One point that I want to make in raising that bill at this time is that it is not low wages that will determine the profits for Amer- ican industry to become more competitive in the world market, not lower wages, but higher skills. Because we are still following the Taylor model of our business industrial life in this country, we must divest ourselves of that approach of the small elite of man- agers and a whole workforce out there on the front lines saying, in effect, the only way we increase productivity is to do that routine faster, faster, and faster. Well, that is not the answer. The rest of the world has found it. We have not found it yet. And I would refer that bill to you to be considered on the matter of bringing higher skills of the current workforce in order to be more competitive. One last point is that we find today some alarming statistics of what is happening to our labor force, the current labor force, and that is from the National Center on Education and the Economy. Since 1969, they have studied and found that earnings have fallen 12 percent, the wage earnings. Furthermore, the income of our top 30 percent of earners have increased, while the other 70 percent have spiraled downward and a lot of those have plummeted down- ward, and that division between our economic society, in my view, is another serious issue we must address. I want to again say thank you for permitting me to testify here today. I want to indicate to you that on our appropriations bill that we now have on the floor, Labor-HHS — education bill — we have in- cluded, Mr. Chairman, $100 million in anticipation of this commit- tee's action on this bill in order to launch this initiative under the leadership of Secretary Reich and Secretary Riley. Thank you very much for the privilege to testify. [The prepared statement of Senator Hatfield follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Hatfield Mr. Chairman: I thank you and the members of this subcommit- tee for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss S. 1361, the School-to- Work Opportunities Act of 1993. For years, I have been deeply concerned that America is address- ing the requirements of its workforce in the wrong way. Today, the vast majority of this nation's companies divide complex jobs into a myriad of simple repetitive tasks performed by mostly ill-prepared or under-educated front-line workers. Under this "Tayloristic" sys- tem, workers are directed by a small, well educated, highly com- pensated, group of managers and supervisors who make virtually all the decisions and solve all the problems for the entire company. Regrettably, we have become so over dependent on this small cadre of decision makers and managers that our ability to increase our quality and variety of products, processes and services is di- minishing. Therefore, our capacity to adapt to new consumer needs in this global economy and sustain a high standard of living has suffered. If we continue to ignore our front-line workers' abilities, I believe that our folly ultimately will relegate us to second class status in the global marketplace. According to the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce: "the world is prepared to pay high prices and high wages for quality, variety and responsiveness to changing consumer tastes." If we are to continue as the world's economic leader, we must develop the best educated and best trained workforce in the world in order to command those high prices and afford those high wages. American employers must recognize that they need — and must insist on having— workers who are versatile. U.S. workers must be able to adapt to changing conditions not only by learning new skills but also by changing their roles in the workplace. They must be ca- Eable of solving problems, and they must be encouraged to do so y working in teams and by helping for ward- thinking management meet its responsibilities. The legislation before us today does not address the skill development of our current workforce. It will, however, help our competitiveness in the future by assisting states to prepare our youth for the critical transition from school-to- work. As the global marketplace has evolved, why have our competi- tors' standards of living improved when ours has stagnated — or even declined — over the last few decades? This troubles me. Accord- ing to the National Center on Education and the Economy, since 1969, real average weekly earnings in the United States have fall- en by more than 12 percent. Even more disconcerting is that the incomes of our top 30 percent earners increased while those of the other 70 percent have spiraled downward. And as we all know, the income of non -competitive, displaced workers does not just decline, it plummets — with shock waves rippling through our communities, states and nation. I believe that our lagging standard of living can be explained in- part because our competitors have created multi-track systems which address the educational needs not just of college bound stu- dents. For the non-college-bound students, many of our toughest competitors have created career-oriented educational programs that prepare students to enter the workforce. These programs expose young people to the workplace and teach them occupational skills along with related educational training. Furthermore, our competi- tors have often set up standards that enable these workers to choose career tracks that allow the ambitious and talented to con- tinuously increase their skill levels, and thus, advance further up the corporate and economic ladder. They have recognized that edu- cation and skills development are the keys to high wages and full employment. Clearly, this is a revolutionary departure from the way we think of education in America. As it stands, our most academically gifted students are directed into the college-prep track. The rest — at least those who are not ignored — are sorted into either a vocational or general track that does little service to students and employers alike. American high schools direct most of their attention toward pre- paring student for college. However, of those who enter college, only about 15 percent go on to graduate and then obtain a four year college degree within six years of high school graduation. Yet we continue to allow our educational system to essentially ignore the educational needs of the remaining 85 percent. We abandon them to muddle between different educational and employment op- portunities. Furthermore, about 30 percent of youth aged 16 to 24 lack the necessary skills for entry-level employment. This problem becomes shockingly vivid when one sees that 50 percent of adults in their late twenties have not found a steady job. Mr. Chairman, I say to you with all the seriousness I can mus- ter: Rigidity will not produce prosperity, or even stability, in re- ality. We must change the way we think. We must virtually revolu- tionize the way we address the current educational system for those who will never enter the best higher educational system in the world. We must help students understand why they are learn- ing the particular subject matter so that they think more about ap- plied academics and connect education to the world of work. We must help them to make a successful transition from school-to- work. Allow me to take a moment to explain why and how my state has become a leader in the area of addressing the needs of its noncollege bound student population. In 1988, Governor Neil Goldschmidt asked leaders from all sectors of business, labor, edu- cation and government to help plan a strategy for Oregon's devel- opment over the next two decades. The 180 task-force members had a single charge: examine and recommend how Oregon should shape its economic future with the guiding principle being that we wanted well-paying, productive jobs, providing an economic base that would enrich all aspects of Oregon life. The report became known as "Oregon Shines." Shortly after this report was published, the State legislature cre- ated the Oregon Progress Board. It was directed to translate the strategies in Oregon Shines into tangible and measurable goals of achievement — a road map of progress if you will. In 1991 the Or- egon benchmarks were presented to the state legislature, which unanimously adopted a strategic vision. It is envisioned that by the year 2010, Oregon would distinguish itself as one of the few places that has maintained its natural environment, built communities on a human scale, and developed an economy that would provide well- paying jobs to its citizens. One major focus of the benchmarks is a recognition that our fu- ture as individuals and a state depends on an increasingly able, skilled, and productive citizenry that can respond to new tech- nologies and the increasingly competitive global marketplace. To do this, the benchmarks set MEASURABLE goals to raise Oregonians' fundamental skills including our ability to read and understand, solve problems, function in the work place and to take advantage of occupation-specific training. The governor and the state legislature did not stop at this point. They were determined to carry out this vision. Following the rec- ommendations contained in America's choice: High Skills or Low Wages, whose authors included former Secretaries of Labor Wil- liam Brock and Ray Marshall, several legislative packages were en- acted in an effort to develop a work force equal to any in the nation by the year 2000 and equal to any in the world by the year 2010. One component of this strategy was the establishment of the Workforce Quality Council. Its duty is to set and monitor work force development strategies for the state. Another key component of this endeavor was to help youth make the transition from school- to-work. One of the most significant parts of this whole effort was the pas- sage of the "Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century." This leg- islative package completely restructured my states' educational sys- tem. Specifically, it established certificates of initial mastery and advanced mastery as new high-performance standards for all stu- dents and has created new partnerships among business, labor, and the educational community to develop academic and profes- sional technical standards. Furthermore, the governor and the leg- islature, even with limited available funding, have been generous in their attempts to fund model education and workforce programs. Understandably, Oregon has received national recognition for our efforts. With the passage of the Educational Act for the 21st Centuryl we are transforming Oregon's public schools, focusing on the critical school-to-work transition. Oregon's new Education Act makes a striking break with traditional American education by re- quiring every student to demonstrate mastery of educational knowledge and skills comparable with world class standards. Once basic mastery is demonstrated, and no one advances until fundamental skills are absorbed — students will select a broad ca- reer area to provide the context for further study. This prepares them for post-secondary education or further skills training for a family wage iob. I stress the last three words: Family-wage jobs. Work based learning opportunities will be provided to interested students so that necessary skills and competencies can be learned in the work environment as well as in the classroom. This is vital, it drives home to students the inter-relationship between education and work. Oregon's school reform strategy recognizes the interdependence between places of learning ana places of work. Education and workforce reform movements also recognize that to improve the performance of students and the productivity of workers requires new partnerships among business, labor, education and govern- ment. Oregon is well positioned because we have approached our walk into the 21st century systemically — establishing Oregon Bench- marks to measure the state's progress, creating the Workforce Quality Council and its regional committee structure to improve workforce quality, embracing fundamental restructuring of our schools, and committing ourselves to managing the interrelation- ships and outcomes of the process. S. 1361, the bill the committee considers today has several very attractive features that will stimulate our states to creatively meet the needs of our non-college bound student population. First, it will provide seed money to help states develop comprehensive plans that include work-based and school-based learning programs. Most systems will involve a year of postsecondary education and will lead to a high school diploma, a certificate or diploma from a post- secondary institution and an occupational skill certificate certifying mastery of specific occupational skills. Secondly, it will provide the states with five-year implementation grants to help operate these systems. What particularly excites me about this legislation is that it is very flexible and non-prescriptive. It will allow the states to de- velop their own systems so long as they meet general objectives. It will encourage employers and educators to create their programs with a very limited Federal role. It will also will provide waivers of certain statutory and regulatory provisions from other Federal job training and education programs that may impede States' abil- ity to implement their program. Many of the obstacles required to address the educational and oc- cupational training of our non-college bound student need to be ad- dressed at the state and local levels. Nevertheless, this is also a na- tional problem. Our national economic competitiveness depends on our willingness to help meet our future workforce demands. Let me finally say that I am a proud sponsor of this legislation and look forward to working with members of the Labor Committee to get it enacted quickly into law. Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear before you today. Senator Simon. Thank you. Your presence here and that of our colleague Senator Durenberger, as well as Senator Wofford indi- cates the bipartisan nature of this effort, and I would add we have a panoply of organizations endorsing it, labor, management, edu- cation groups, and I think we can move ahead very quickly. I might mention to my colleagues that I have held off making an opening statement, so we can get the Secretaries in before we go over to the floor. [The prepared statement of Senator Simon follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Simon Our Nation today is faced with the challenge of remaining com- petitive in a complex, global economy. We have to decide how we will meet this challenge: by lowering our wages and reducing our standard of living or by increasing our productivity. I'm sure you will agree that increased productivity is the preferred path. To succeed, we must invest in our young people. If we are going to meet the challenge of rising global competition, we will have to improve the skills and enhance the quality of our incoming workforce. Our education system today, quite frankly, falls short. Thirty percent of our youth between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four don't have the skills necessary for entry-level employment. Fifty percent of adults in their late twenties have not found a steady job. We have to do better. Today we spend a great deal of money to ensure that people have college opportunities. This is appropriate. It is a good investment in our future. But 85% of young people who enter high school do 8 not go on to earn a college degree (within six years of graduation). We ought to be providing more opportunities for them. The School-to- Work Opportunities Act will do this by creating a comprehensive, coherent system for preparing our young people for high skill employment. It will create opportunities for all youth to be successful whether they choose to go on to further education or directly into the workforce. We will be hearing testimony todav on the School-to- Work Op- portunities Act of 1993, which I introduced on behalf of the Admin- istration. I was joined in introducing this bill by a number of my distinguished colleagues from both sides of the aisle, some of whom are here today: Senator Kennedy, Chairman of the Labor Commit- tee and a real leader on these issues; Senators Durenberger, Wofford, Pell and Hatfield. Senator Mikulski, a member of the sub- committee, is also a cosponsor of this bill. This will be the first of two hearings we will hold on this legisla- tion. It is not, however, the first hearing we have held on the issue of school-to- work transition. In December of last year, this sub- committee held a series of hearings on education and training for America's youth. In March, we held a hearing on the Career Path- ways Act, legislation that Senator Wofford and I introduced. I am proud to say that many of the lessons we learned in these hearings have been incorporated into the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. I am pleased to have Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich here today. Earlier this year, the Secretaries gave testimony before the full committee and promised to work together in the development and implementation of the school-to-work initiative. They have come through on that promise. Their cooperation on this legislation is unprecedented and I commend them. The Secretaries developed the bill carefully over the last several months, basing it on the best common elements of effective models across the Nation, while keep- ing it flexible enough so that further innovation is promoted, not hindered. The Departments of Education and Labor received exten- sive and invaluable input from the business, education, and labor communities; from community based organizations, state and local governments and others who have had experience in developing school -to- work programs. The result is a comprehensive bill that has the support of busi- ness, labor and education. I'd like to enter into the record a series of letters of support. And if I may just read the names of these or- ganizations because, quite frankly, it is an impressive list: Busi- ness Roundtable; National Alliance of Business; National Associa- tion of Manufacturers; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; AFL-CIO; Unit- ed Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting; Service Employees Union; National Education Asso- ciation; American Federation of Teachers; Council of Chief State School Officers; American Association of Community Colleges; Na- tional PTA; Na^nnal Association of State Directors of Vocational and Technical Education Consortium; National Governors' Associa- tion; U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; National Conference of State Legislatures; National Urban League; National Youth Employment Coalition; and American Youth Policy Forum. In working to pass this important legislation, we have been and must continue to be guided by five principals. First, this is not nor should it be a new federal program. The School-to-Work Opportuni- ties Act will provide seed money to states to begin development and implementation of School-to-Work Opportunities systems. It en- courages coordination with other Federal programs by allowing waivers where necessary. Second, this system must be established from the ground up, building upon local and state successes. Third, we must assure flexibility. There is not one specific model for a successful School-to-Work Opportunities program. As long as certain basic elements are there, local people must be given the op- portunity to fashion programs that meet their needs. Fourth, a partnership between the business, education and labor communities is essential. Each of these groups must play an active role in every stage of the planning, development and implementa- tion of School-to-Work systems. Finally, this cannot be another track. School-to-Work Opportuni- ties programs must be for all young people. And all young people should have the ability to make an informed decision about choos- ing a career path. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is one piece of the puzzle in the effort to improve our education system so that it prepares all young people for success. I believe we can and must pass this bill quickly and I look forward to working with the President, the Secretaries and my colleagues in enacting this important legisla- tion. Senator Wofford. I will, too, if I can put mine in the record. I congratulate them for this good an important bill. Even despite the fact it resembles the one you and I authored, I want to whole- heartedly support it. [Laughter.] Senator Simon. Thank you. Your statement will be entered in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Wofford follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Wofford Today we have before us once again an example of those of us in the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, finding common ground. I am happy to join with Senators Simon, Hatfield and Durenberger, Kennedy and others to sponsor the School to Work Opportunities Act of 1993, S. 1361. I note also with great appreciation the support of Congress- man Goodling, minority chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and my Pennsylvania colleague. As I have stated on other occasions, it is refreshing to have Sec- retaries Riley and Reich appearing jointly to discuss tnis legislation that they have worked so hard to craft. To their credit, and to the credit of their excellent staffs, they have worked together to de- velop— after extensive consultations — this excellent measure. I am pleased that the Administration's legislation largely reflects the bill Senator Simon and I authored earlier this spring, The Ca- reer Pathways Act of 1993, S. 456. As our original bill did, this leg- islation: 10 emphasizes partnerships — between schools, business, labor, foundations and government; creates a synergy among these sectors that leverages resources and fosters innovation; invests in state and local ideas and grassroots solutions; pro- vides "seed capital" and standards for an integrated, outcomes- oriented system of apprenticeship-style programs where the role of government is to "steer not row"; fosters competition and experimentation; creates a decentralized, anti-bureaucratic framework for fun- damentally reforming education. The reinvention of government must mean less government and to this end I have put forth specific cuts in excess of $64 billion dol- lars that are on top of the cuts included in the President's budget bill. But the reinvention of government must mean not only that we cut spending but that we also spend more wisely. We must in- vest in our young people, our workforce of tomorrow, as this bill does. We must invest in what works and, as we have demonstrated in Pennsylvania, apprenticeship programs work. While we are preparing our students for jobs in malls and McDonald's, foreign competitors like Germany and Japan and oth- ers have developed extensive, integrated youth education and job training programs preparing for the high 'wage, high-tech global economy of the 21st century. Germany spends more than three times as much as the United States on non-college bound youth. We disproportionately distribute vital public resources. For every taxpayer dollar invested in the education of non-college bound youth, $55 dollars is spent subsidizing those going to college. We must do better. We must increase our investments in education. Recently, the Competitiveness Policy Council on which I served issued a report documenting that only 50% of high school grad- uates enter postsecondary education or training programs and of these, only half will complete a baccalaureate program. Thus three- fourths of our high school graduates leave school with little train- ing for the workforce of today and no training for the workforce of tomorrow. These young people often move from one low skill job to the next with periods of unemployment and sometimes welfare in between. Tragically, about Vb of these workers will have held a job less than a year even as they move into their 30s. This cannot con- tinue. As Secretary of Labor and Industry in Pennsylvania, I helped launch the Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program which — as PennSERVE was for national service — is a model for the rest of the nation. This highly successful effort is based on the old proposition that students learn best by doing. As of January of 1993, the Penn- sylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program involved approximately 75 firms sponsoring over 120 youngsters in high-skill metal-working, manufacturing, and health care. This legislation incorporates much of what we learned in Pennsylvania and will help expand our ef- forts as well as replicate them nationwide. One of the hallmarks of our rigorous, four-year Pennsylvania Apprenticeship model is that it combines secondary and post-secondary credentials with work-based learning, thus keeping a youngster's options open. 11 In closing, let me thank Senator Simon, Chairman Kennedy, and Secretaries Reich and Riley for their leadership on this issue. Senator Simon. My staff tells me that Secretary Riley is to be first. I have no preference here. Is this on the basis of age, or what is the Secretary Riley. I do not know. Senator Simon. Secretary Riley, we will hear from you. STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD RILEY, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Secretary Riley. K through 12 comes first, I guess. Mr. Chairman, Senators Wofford and Durenberger, I want to thank Senator Hatfield for his statement and his strong interest in this area and revealing information, and I am certainly pleased to be here with Secretary Reich in support of this measure. Early this month, I had the opportunity along with Secretary Reich to go to Delaware with the President to launch this new ini- tiative, and it was really a wonderful way to kick off this program, which is really all about a jump-start for young people. That is what we are really doing. We are launching an initiative that will eventually help millions of young people to jump-start their ca- reers. Every year, as was pointed out, a couple of million young people begin high school and then, of course, the great majority — 75 per- cent or so— do not finish the 4-year program. These young people are really the heart and soul of the American workforce and our future. Many of these students will just drift through school. They will sit in the back of the classroom, they will get their C's, and then when they graduate, suddenly they realize that they have no idea how to get a job, how to connect up with that, no family connec- tions, no specific skills, no understanding about how to hook them- selves into the economy. This is not always their fault. We have gotten into the habit of thinking that education is kind of like an assembly line. It is the old industrial vision of education and it does not work any more. Our children are smarter than we think. One of the reasons they turn off from school is that sometimes it is simply a remarkably boring experience. It becomes routine, unchallenging, and if a child is subjected to a watered-down curriculum, well, pity for that poor child. Then we wonder why they drown themselves in television or finally give up and sometimes, as we know, drop out. We never really answer a basic question for them, why do I have to learn all of this. We have not done a very good job of making the connection between learning, paycheck and some basic career goals. So they come out of school oftentimes uninspired and in some cases without even the most basic skill. The National Adult Literacy Study found that about 20 percent of people with the lowest level of literacy have high school diplo- mas. So what do they do? They bounce around, they take any job to get by, they live from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find work at all. Almost a third never figure out a real career path until they are some 30 years old, and that is about a decade after they 12 graduate. To my mind, that goes a long way toward explaining why our economy sometimes seems very tired and sluggish. We need to reinvent the American school to find a way to catch the attention of these young people, to help them get a focus on life a little earlier. We cannot continue to sort students into either a college track or a general track that really leads to nowhere in par- ticular. The high school of the future is going to have to give our young people a solid academic background that meets high standards, the kind of standards that would be established under Goals 2000: the Educate America Act, which will be benchmarked to the highest standards in the world. At the same time, we will have to get them thinking about life beyond high school, to give them the opportunity to choose from a series of career paths, to be able to enter programs like the one the President visited this month, one that starts them on a path to- ward getting a portable and nationally recognized credential of skill certificate that tells every employer that these young people know what they are doing. And that is what the School-Work Opportunities Act hopes to achieve. If we do it right, and we can, we can prepare these young people for even more sophisticated training at the community and 4-year college level. I want to thank Secretary Reich for his leadership in this effort, certainly Senator Hatfield, as he joins us today. Our two depart- ments, Labor and Education, have worked hand in hand, both on Goals 2000 and on this companion initiative. I can tell you that this type of cooperation is one sure way to reinvent government. The theme of reinventing government is the cornerstone of this legislation. In order to build a school-to-work system, we will have to reinvent the whole Federal-State-commu- nity partnership. The development of these school-to-work systems will not work, if we think in terms of a Federal one-size-fits-all model. There is an enormous amount of creativity in this country, and this new initiative is designed to take advantage of this creativity to build upon the innovative programs that some States and com- munities have already started. As a former Governor, I know what a difference it makes to have the flexibility to craft your own solution to fit the particular econ- omy of your State and your community. That is why this legislation includes waiver provisions, to give States and communities the flexibility they need to create a school-to- work system, one that en- courages creativity, to integrate existing Federal programs like the Carl Perkins Act and JTPA, to support the development of a com- prehensive school-to-work system. Under this legislation, the Federal role is really to promote the creation of school-to-work systems at the State and local levels. We will provide the seed capital to help the States get started. Concep- tually, we will frame the picture by setting out three core compo- nents that every school-to-work program should have, and then we will give States and communities the latitude that they need to fill in the details. 13 First, every program will incorporate work-based learning, in- cluding paid work experience, workplace mentoring, broad instruc- tion in industry specific skills, and a sequential program of job training experiences with skills to be mastered at increasingly higher levels. Second, every program will include school-based learning and a program of study that meets challenging academic standards devel- oped under Goals 2000. Students will have regularly scheduled evaluations to identify strengths and weaknesses, and they will have counseling to identify their interests and explore careers, and they will choose a career major by no later than the 11th grade. Work-based and school-based learning will culminate in the award of high school diplomas and skill certificates that are recognized by the industries studied and for which the students are trained. Finally, local programs will be required to provide connecting ac- tivities that are essential to matching students with employers in bridging the worlds of school and work. Technical assistance and services will be provided to employers to help them design their programs of study. And after completing the program, students will get help in finding an appropriate job and continuing their edu- cation or in entering an additional training program. Relationship between Goals 2000 and school-to-work is impor- tant. It is importance of high academic and skill standards of Goals 2000, making an integral part of the success of what we are trying to accomplish in this new program. Through Goals 2000, we hope to create challenging voluntary na- tional standards for core academic courses. States will use these standards as benchmarks in developing their own high standards. Students in school-to-work programs will be expected to meet these high academic standards. In addition, Goals 2000 also promotes the development of na- tional skill standards, and a student who successfully completes the school-to-work program will earn a skill certificate benchmarked to these national skill standards. The skill standards set by the national board will State plainly that which a person should know and be able to do in a broad range of occupations. Now, what does this mean for an employer? It will give them some sense of security that a student who walks into their office with a skill certificate already has some of the basic skills needed to function in their industry. Students, for their part, will know that a skill certificate earned in Illinois will be respected from Or- egon to Maine. In closing, I believe this legislation will go a long way, Mr. Chair- man and members of the committee, toward answering a question that students have been asking for generations: why do I have to learn this. In the end, they will come to realize the truth of the re- minder that President Clinton has so often issued, that the more you learn, the more you earn. Thank you, Senator. Senator Simon. We thank you. We are pleased to be joined by Senator Thurmond and Senator Pell. Because of our roll calls, we are entering our statements in the record, if that is all right with the two Senators. 14 Senator Thurmond. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my statement and that of Senator Durenberger be made a part of the record. Senator Simon. It will be entered in the record. [The prepared statement of Senators Thurmond and Durenberger follow:] Prepared Statement of Senator Thurmond Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of our witnesses here today. I would like to especially welcome our distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Mark Hatfield. I would also like to welcome the Secretaries of Labor and Education, Secretary Reich and my good friend Secretary Richard Riley. It is also a pleasure to have with us today Mr. Bob Jones, former Assistant Secretary for Employ- ment and Training. Mr. Chairman, S. 1361, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993, would provide grants and waivers of federal regulations to build a national framework for state school-to-work systems. This legislation would be jointly administered by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education. It is intended to help students suc- cessfully make the transition from school to their first job. This transition is accomplished by linking academic instruction with on- the-job experience. While S. 1361 addresses the issue of youth job training. I believe we must build on successful programs in the areas of tech-prep- education, school-to-apprenticeship programs, youth apprenticeship and business-education compacts. In my home State of South Caro- lina, we have an award winning tech-prep program. I believe we can look to this program as a model. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that businesses are not involved in the process called for in this legislation. I agree with Dr. Adler that "the involvement of business consists primarily of: 'planning and developing"' but this legislation says little about the role of business in the implementation of the program. I am also con- cerned that the plan calls for partnerships between employers, edu- cational institutions, labor organizations and others, but it does not call for the parents and the students to be involved in this partner- ship. I believe that we should include both parents and students in this part of the program. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should ensure that our students can participate in the school-to-work program and not be prohibited from continuing on to a 4-year college. I believe we should make clear that this legislation will not be "tracking" our students or cre- ating a work readiness program. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of our witnesses hear today. I look forward to hearing your tes- timony. Prepared Statement of Senator Durenberger Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to sit in with your Subcommittee this afternoon. Thank you for having me. 15 I thought I would just take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about the reasons that I signed on as lead Republican co-sponsor of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. At the next hearing on this bill, I hope to share with the Committee some of the feedback I've received from the people in my home state of Minnesota. At the outset, I want to commend you, Senator Simon, for your leadership on this and other important education issues. You have been involved for over three years in trying to address school-to- work transition on a national level. It is my hope that, finally, we will have the opportunity to pass a bill this year, or early next year. Let me turn now to the three primary reasons I believe this bill is so important, and that — as a Republican — I decided to support it and co-sponsor it: First, I think it's clear to everyone on this Committee, both Re- publicans and Democrats, that our, schools today are not doing a good enough job of preparing our children to face the challenges of the modern American workplace. In all likelihood, the workplace of tomorrow will require kids to be even better prepared and to bring higher skills than our schools are now capable of delivering. This dilemma has serious ramifications for U.S. businesses, as well as our young people. American companies need well trained, highly skilled workers if they are to compete and succeed in the in- creasingly competitive global marketplace. The business community recognizes this reality and, with it, the need to prepare young people using the kind or school -based and work-based learning initiatives supported by this bill. This bill is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Asso- ciation of Manufacturers, the National Alliance of Business, and the Business Roundtable. I can tell you that the strongest and most positive feedback I have received about the School-to-Work Opportunities Act has been from leaders in the Minnesota business community who under- stand how crucial a well-trained workforce is to U.S. productivity. In a recent survey of over 300 Minnesota businesses by the Min- nesota Business Partnership, nearly two-thirds of Minnesota em- ployers said that a typical high school education is no longer good enough for today's business standards. The survey also found that: Job applicants who have only a high school diploma are eligi- ble for only half the positions offered by Minnesota companies; Even fewer jobs are available to those young people who do not have high school diplomas; Employers in nearly 90 percent of Minnesota manufacturing firms and 80 percent of non-manufacturing firms agree that technical qualifications are more important now than they were ten years ago; 90 percent of Minnesota employers believe today's work envi- ronment demands greater decision-making and problem solv- ing skills; and More than 90 percent of Minnesota employers in both manu- facturing and non-manufacturing companies said they would like graduates to be certified as meeting a minimum set of standards, and that they would be more likely to hire appli- cants who had been certified. 16 I think these numbers speak for themselves in highlighting the business community's belief that we need to do a better job of pre- paring our children for the challenges of the modern American workplace. The second reason I decided to become the lead Republican co- sponsor of this legislation is that it adopts a flexible, bottom-up ap- proach to encouraging and facilitating locally-developed, locally-op- erated, and locally-administered school-to-work transition pro- grams. Unlike earlier school-to-work proposals, this bill contains no em- ployer mandates and no pay-or-play provisions. And, unlike the Goals 2000 legislation this Committee recently marked up, there is no "National Apprenticeship Board" or "National School-To-Work Board" overseeing these local initiatives. Let me say this primarily for the benefit of my Republican col- leagues— this bill does not create a new federal program. What it does is provide a temporary infusion of financial assistance to help stimulate state and local responses to the need to train young peo- ple to compete for higher skill, higher wage jobs. The Federal Gov- ernment's role under this bill is confined to providing start-up funding, coordination, and technical support for state and local school-to-work initiatives. No single approach to building school-to- work programs is appro- priate for every state or every community in this nation. And, suc- cessful school-to-work systems cannot be mandated or controlled from Washington. Instead, they must be developed through the ac- tive involvement of business and community leaders, labor organi- zations, parents, and educators in communities across America. This bill recognizes that reality. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is designed in part as a catalyst to encourage state and local efforts to develop school-to- work programs by building on existing programs and by removing barriers now faced by states, communities, and employers in mak- ing alternative ways of learning job skills a viable option. The third reason I support this bill is that, while it does not cre- ate a new program, it also has the potential to consolidate, reduce, and minimize overlap in existing programs. Indeed, the waiver authority may be one of the most important features of this legislation. At their discretion, states may combine funds, adjust eligibility requirements, and set priorities for a wide range of federal vocational education, job training, and other edu- cation and job preparation programs. Giving states and commu- nities this flexibility may effectively consolidate and coordinate sep- arately funded, separately administered Federal programs in a way that we have thus far lacked the political will to do legislatively. Perhaps we need to make that purpose clearer. I know that Sen- ator Kassebaum, our distinguished Ranking Member, has some concerns in that regard. I hope to add some ideas myself, particu- larly in emphasizing the need to link career exploration and prepa- ration to classroom education at a younger age, and the need to view transition programs as an important part of overall education reform. But I do believe the bill provides a starting point for this type of systemic reform. 17 The School-to- Work Opportunities Act is not perfect. By agreeing to support this legislation, I have committed my energies and the expertise of my state to help make the bill even stronger. But I would not have become the lead Republican co-sponsor if the bill did not possess a framework that is already consistent with basic Republican principles like bottom-up program development, strong community involvement, program consolidation, and a lim- ited role for the Federal Government. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act helps address the very real need to: (1) give the young people of America hope that they can achieve the same opportunities that previous generations have had to succeed in the workplace; and (2) to give employers a better way to get the skilled workforce they need in an increasingly com- petitive world economy. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this important legislation, and in working construc- tively to make the bill even stronger. Thank you. I look forward to today's testimony. Senator Pell. Mine, likewise. Senator Simon. And Senator Pell's will be, also. [The prepared statement of Senator Pell follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Pell Mr. Chairman, I wish to join you in welcoming Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich to this hearing concerning S. 1361, the "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993." I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important Administration initiative, which you introduced on August 5th of this year. In developing this legislation, President Clinton is keeping his commitment to establish a comprehensive system to help ease the transition from 'school to a changing American workplace that, in- creasingly, demands high-skilled and well-educated workers. I strongly believe that we must continue to emphasize the impor- tance of obtaining a college education. We must not, however, ne- glect to provide career education and training opportunities for the 75 percent of our youth who enter the workplace without a bacca- laureate degree, two-thirds of whom never even begin college. Unlike most of our competitors in the global marketplace, we do not have a cohesive, comprehensive school-to-work system. This bill would build on successful programs such as tech-prep and coopera- tive education, while allowing for flexibility so that programs can best address the needs of each individual community to better serve our non-college bound youth. It is a critical first step in the process of creating a system of life-long learning. I congratulate Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich for their attention to this im- f>ortant issue and I look forward to working with them to move this egislation forward. Average Type of Degree Monthly Earnings Professional $4,961 Doctorate 3,855 Master's 2,822 Bachelor's 2,116 18 Average Type of Degree Monthly Earning* Associate 1,672 Vocational 1,237 Some college, no degree 1,280 High school 1,077 Not a high school grad 492 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division. Senator Simon. Secretary Reich, we are happy to have you here. Let me just say, as one who has been here through Democratic and Republican administrations and who has seen a Tot of turf bat- tles, one of the things that is impressive is how the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor are working together in this administration, and that is a tribute to both of you. We thank you both. Secretary Reich? STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT REICH, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Secretary Reich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Seven months ago, Secretary Riley and I articulated the problem. There is a growing gap between those who -are prepared for work and those who are not prepared for work. During the 1980's, the earnings gap doubled. It continues to widen. This is an enormous social problem. If you are in the 25 percent of Americans who have a college de- gree, you are on a slightly upwards escalator in terms of your earn- ings. If you do not have a 4-year college degree, vou are on a down- ward escalator. If you just have a high school degree, very pro- foundly, if less than a high school degree, you are on a very quick downward escalator. The gap is widening. Now, why is that the case? It is widening for two reasons. No. 1, because of technology: If you are well prepared, technology is your friend, it is your ally, it enhances the value that you are ad- dressing. If you are not prepared, technology is supplanting you. We have a lot of examples: Automated tellers, instead of bank tell- ers; automated switching machinery, instead of telephone opera- tors. Also, international trade, it is good for America, it is good for ev- eryone. But if you are not prepared to be a player in the global economy, there are 12,000 people entering the world economy every week. The vast majority of them would be delighted to work for a small fraction of your prevailing wages. And I can guarantee you that most of these people are working for far lower wages than the average Mexican. The answer is not to stop technology. The answer is not to build a wall around America. The answer is to upgrade our workforce. We do a very good job with regard to our university graduates. We have the best university system in the world. I speak slightly in self-interested terms. But with regard to young people who do not go on, who just grad- uate from high school, we are allowing them to drift. The 75 per- cent of our young people who do not get a 4-year university degree 19 are often in trouble. We cannot afford that and we cannot afford that gap to widen. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 is an attempt to deal with that problem. It is not a magic bullet. It is not an entire solution. But we believe it is an important attempt. It builds on work that many of you have done — Senator Simon, Senator Wofford, Senator Hatfield. It builds on work that has occurred in the States. Many States have made pioneering progress in terms of school-to-work transitions. The Federal Government now needs to provide seed money, not a new big Federal program, not a big bureaucracy, but venture cap- ital, if you will, seed money to the States that are out in front, and planning money to other States to get them up to speed, and then go out of business. This is a reinvention of government, as Sec- retary Riley said. There are five major ways in which this program meets real needs. It gets businesses in on the ground floor. We want business and educators to work together, and States will be awarded grants if they can show that business and government are working to- gether, and businesses and educators. We want to build on what works. States are making progress, not one size, but we want ex- perimentation. We want to encourage experimentation. We want to mobilize and accelerate the direction that things are already mov- ing in. There ought to be a national network, so there are national high standards. And after 2 years, 11th and 12th grade with work-based learning and school-based learning and a connection between the two, followed by a year or two after high school with a skill certifi- cate at the end attesting wherever you go that you have attained those skills. That is a tremendous avenue, upwards mobility, a ca- reer path for a lot of people who do not now have it. There ought to be a strong partnership between business and schools. By the way, the partnership you see here between the Sec- retary of Education and the Secretary of Labor is in a way a meta- phor for the partnership that we hope is going to be out there be- tween business, the private sector, workers and educators. Finally, we want to leverage resources. The Federal Government cannot do it alone, States cannot do it alone, and business cannot do it alone. Together, there are some synergies. States, the Federal Government, business, workers, private sector, public sector work- ing together, we can create more than simply the sum of the parts, and we have seen it. In fact, since we testified, since I testified before, I have gone around the country looking in detail at many of these programs, with Senator Wofford, in Pennsylvania. There are some extraor- dinary programs. In Louisiana. I was out in Kansas with Senator Kassebaum looking at some of the apprenticeship programs out there. In Vermont with Senator Jeffords. It is happening around the country in fits and starts, but we can provide momentum to this movement by providing seed money and setting up a national set of criteria. This program has received the support of every major business group in America, the AFL-CIO, teachers groups. It is time for a program like this. As Senator Hatfield saia, we need to do more, 20 and I will be back up before the full committee with other pro- grams dealing with workers who have lost their jobs who also need some help in getting the next job. This is not the cure-all, but this is an extremely important begin- ning with regard to addressing the problem that America faces, the problem we face with regard to the increasing gap. We must not allow ourselves to become a two-tiered society. We must preserve and protect those avenues of upward mobility, and this School-to- Work Opportunities Act of 1993 helps us begin that process. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich may be found in the appendix.] Senator Simon. We thank you. Let me suggest, could we each ask just one question of the Sec- retaries, so that we can get in some questions before the roll calls begin. Senator Hatfield used the phrase that I think is a reality to too much of a degree, and that is "educational snobbery," that there is an elite among us who go on to college and then the nonelite do not. How does this legislation address that problem, if I may ask both of you? Secretary RlLEY. I think we both might have a comment. Let me say, from the educational standpoint, for the first time we are see- ing the occupational skill standards placed in the education meas- ure for high standards. It is not like it is another program over here to the side. It is all part of this idea of a framework for edu- cation that is driven by high standards and results. I think that is in the beginning a clear statement, Senator, that this is a universal program, it is in seeing that all young people can learn, and then by having the same high academic standards required for all young people, then we are making it very clear that it is not separating out into a watered-down curriculum for some and a tougher standard for others. So it is the high academic standards plus this special interest in these broad occupational areas. Secretary Reich. Mr. Chairman, if I may build on that, we have to disenthrall ourselves from the proposition that you have to get a 4-year college degree in order to have a good job as a society. The former West Germany, a smaller proportion of their citizens have the equivalent of college degrees and yet their real earnings are much higher now than Americans. The issue is skills. It is not necessarily a college degree. Employ- ers often are using a 4-year college degree as a proxy, a kind of symbol for whether this is somebody who is worth investing in. But through this program, we are going to create another symbol, an- other credential, another proxy, and that would be a skill with a skill certificate at the end. So that an employer, regardless of where that employer is around the country, can say yes, this par- ticular young person has mastered an area of technological or an area of technical competence, this is a person worth investing in at the workplace, not just a 4-year college graduate. In this country, we have an extraordinary system of community colleges, technical institutes, vocational institutes, all kinds of 21 training programs, but we have got to bring them together and focus them in ways that have not been focused to date. Senator Simon. Senator Thurmond? Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Simon. If you would ask each one of them one question. Senator Thurmond. Ask each one of them one question? Senator Simon. You go ahead and — [Laughter.] Senator Thurmond. Secretary Riley, as you know, we have an award-winning tech prep program at Trident Technical College in South Carolina. Now, what assurances do we have that this suc- cessful program will not be hindered by this act? Secretary Riley. Senator, you are exactly right, and, of course, one of the things we are all proud of in South Carolina is our tech- nical college system, 16 colleges, and some of them have been rec- ognized, as the one you point out, nationally in many ways. The tech prep program, of course, is set out in the Carl Perkins Act and reauthorization and this absolutely builds upon that. It uses tech prep as one of the models which certainly is clearly one of the workable, one of the best models out there. We have a core set of components that this program would like to build into all programs. Tech prep is especially strong in the school-based learning aspect of the preparation of these young people. It probably could use an expansion more into the workplace learning. So this would take a tech prep program, hopefully expand it into more workplace, more connection with the employer, real jobs, real relevant positions and use the tech prep model as really one of the basic models for us to build upon. Senator Thurmond. So you see no interference, then? Secretary Riley. Absolutely not. To the contrary. Senator Thurmond. Secretary Reich, S. 1361 authorizes $300 million for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be necessary in each of the following 7 years. What is the total authorization an- ticipated under this bill, and what sources of revenue do you antici- pate will pay for this program? Secretary Reich. In 1995, Senator, the anticipated costs and the hoped for appropriation would be, as you said, $300 million. In 1996, it would be $400 million. We believe, in consultation with the States, that although that is a considerable amount of money, that leverages a great deal of States' money that is provided to States on condition that States meet certain criteria. The States have to come up with a program that meets those criteria, and we think in the States that are actively engaged in the school-to-work transi- tion and will meet those criteria anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of their young people who are not going on to college will be served, even though the amount appropriated is not huge. Senator Thurmond. It sounds like the program and how you plan to pay for it, as Senator Hatfield promises, you are going to furnish some money? Senator Hatfleld. We have already acted on that, Senator. Senator Thurmond. Pardon? Senator Hatfleld. We have $100 million in this current bill on the floor, in anticipation that you are going to pass this act. 22 Senator Thurmond. In other words, a lot of things that are in this bill appear to be very worth programs, but I just wondered, since we have such a big debt, how are we going to pay for it. Secretary Reich. Well, this bill is a high priority with regard to the Education and Labor Departments. It is already in our Dudget requests for fiscal year 1995, cuts elsewhere in the government, and the President has already arranged that under the caps, the anticipated caps with regard to 1995 and 1996, these programs would be paid for. As Senator Hatfield said, for fiscal year 1994, hopefully, we have $100 million under present authority that is JTPA and Carl Perkins which will at least allow us to begin the progress. But this is the authorizing legislation hopefully for 1995 and beyond. Senator Thurmond. Now, will some other programs be cut and use that money to pay for this, or is this an additional cost to the government? Secretary Reich. This is not in addition. As you know, under the Budget Enforcement Act and under the new budget authority, dis- cretionary spending is frozen, so by definition, these kinds of pro- grams of this $300 million in fiscal year 1995 and $400 million in fiscal year 1996 would come from elsewhere in the discretionary budgets. Senator Thurmond. I thank you both very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Simon. Senator Wofford? Senator Wofford. In Pennsylvania, we found that union partici- pation from the beginning was very important, and getting their good ideas and their consent. To what extent have unions been in- volved, unions who have such a stake in apprenticeship programs been involved in the shaping of the proposals? Secretary Reich. Senator, the unions have been extremely ac- tively involved in the shaping of the proposals, particularly unions that already have actively engaged in registered apprenticeship programs. Remember, the unions have been pioneers in this area. Many unions, such as the constructions unions, have developed ap- prenticeship programs for young people. They tend to be slightly older people than coming out of college, and, indeed, this program could be viewed as a bridge either to college or to a unionized reg- istered apprenticeship program or to any other higher program pursuing additional skills. The unions are very supportive and have been very helpful. Senator Wofford. I don't know that we have time for any more. We are running out of our time for a vote. Senator Simon. We thank you. What we will do — and you have the good fortune of roll calls because you have an abbreviated testi- mony here — I say to both Secretaries, we will probably have some written questions for you, if you can get those answers up as quick- ly as you can. Senator Hatfield, you mentioned one suggestion for a modifica- tion. Nothing is written in stone here. We are eager to work with everyone. For our other witnesses, we will have a recess now of about 30 or 40 minutes for several roll calls on the floor. 23 Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, did I ask that our joint state- ment be entered in the record? If I might request that, we would appreciate it. Senator Simon. It will be entered in the record. Thank you. We thank you both very much. The subcommittee stands in recess. [Recess.] Senator Simon. The hearing will resume. Our second panel is composed of Dr. John Dow, Jr., President of the National Academy Foundation; Richard Graziano, Director of the Academy of Travel and Tourism, and a teacher in New York City public schools; Ellen Williams, Senior Vice President of Amer- ican Express Travel Related Services Company; and Michelle Yhap, who is a senior at Richmond Hill High School — if I am pronouncing it correctly. Ms. Yhap. Yes, the H is silent. Senator Simon. Am I doing all right? Ms. Yhap. Yes, you are. Senator Simon. Unless someone has any other preference, we will start with you, Michelle, and we will hear from — you do have a preference. All right. You would like to go first? Mr. Dow. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Senator Simon. Dr. Dow, we will call on you. STATEMENTS OF JOHN DOW, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NY; ELLEN R. WIL- LIAMS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN EXPRESS COM- PANY, NEW YORK, NY; MICHELLE YHAP, SENIOR, RICHMOND HILL HIGH SCHOOL, NEW YORK, NY; AND RICHARD GRAZIANO, DIRECTOR, ACADEMY OF TRAVEL AND TOURISM, AND TEACHER, NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NEW YORK, NY Mr. Dow. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, mv name is John Dow, Jr., and I am President of the National Academy Foundation. Senator Simon. Before you go on, we will stick to the 5-minute rule and we will enter formal statements in the record. If people wish to just informally present their testimony, that is fine, how- ever you wish to proceed. Mr. Dow. Thank you, sir. I also bring greetings on behalf of our foundation's board Chair- man, Mr. Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and our Vice Chairman, Senator William E. Brock. Mr. Chairman, just this past July, the National Foundation held its 9th annual Institute for Staff Development, featuring Labor Secretary Reich via satellite in your lovely city of Chicago. We ap- preciated your desire to have joined us and certainly hope we may nave the honor of your presence at a future institute. You will find additional testimony attached to my remarks with your staff. As a former teacher, a recently sitting urban super- intendent for some 18 years, most recently in New Haven, CT, the seventh poorest, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the two distinguished Cabinet members, Secretary Reich of the Labor De- partment and Secretary Riley of Education, on the outstanding 24 work that they are doing in making the school-to-work initiative a primary agenda item at their respective departments. I applaud the fact that they are insisting on high standards for all of our young people in this Nation, because we have too long had too many tracks and most of those tracks are leading nowhere. We applaud the Clinton administration's leadership in tackling what I consider to be the most important crisis facing our Nation's economic and educational future. And certainly I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this subcommittee, as well as the other members who introduced this important legislation on be- half of our Nation's youth. Before I make any more brief remarks, I would certainly like to introduce a person who represents a very, very responsible cor- porate partner. I would like to introduce Ms. Ellen Randolph Wil- liams, Senior Vice President, Quality and Human Resources, Amer- ican Express Company. I would also like to introduce Mr. Richard Graziano, teacher and program director, Academy of Travel and Tourism in New York City, and Ms. Michelle Yhap, a student in the Academy of Travel and Tourism at Richmond Hill High School in New York City, and probably the one that we should be listening and talking to the most here today. The National Academy Foundation, just briefly, grew out of a partnership between the American Express Company and New York City schools some 11 years ago. The program was designed to encourage graduating New York high school students to enter a rapidly growing financial services industry, because of that indus- try's concern for a lack of qualified workers in New York City. Because the program was so successful in New York City and in such demand around the Nation, the National Academy Founda- tion was established in 1988 by American Express to encourage partnerships between business and education all around this Na- tion. NAF programs are delivered through an academy format within each high school that links business, education and the community. To date, we have successfully launched partnerships and developed curriculum for Academies of Finance, Travel and Tourism, Public Service and Manufacturing Sciences. The strengths of our program are many, but if I may highlight two: One, the industry validated curriculum regularly reviewed and updated to meet changing industry standards is very, very critical. A comprehensive business, site-based, paid internship for our stu- dents, and a vital national and local staff development component for all of our teachers and what have you, and it is cost effective. During the past 11 years since the launching of the first Acad- emy of Finance in New York City, NAF has received funding from both public and private sources. American Express has contributed in excess of $2 million during each of the past 5 years for replica- tion of our academies around the country. Currently, we are in 110 high schools throughout 21 States, serv- ing over 6,000 students in 50 cities and counties from Chicago to Miami, and from Hawaii to New York, and most major cities in be- tween. 25 Currently, we have 75 percent of our students which are minor- ity, and 63 percent are female. Over 400 corporations, civic agencies, nonprofit organizations and small businesses have provided paid internships valued at $2.7 million this past summer. Over 55 corporate partnerships between NAF business advisory and public schools are presently in effect. Our programs were recently cited in the June 1992 SCANS re- port entitled "SCANS in the Schools" as successful curricula models for attaining the national secondary school educational goals for preparing students with necessary work place skills. Because of the success and independent evaluation and valida- tion of our model by evaluating institutions such as AED, etc, we have received a grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation for $1 mil- lion to design 3 unique academies in 3 cities with an emphasis in mortgage banking, real estate, mentoring and generous scholarship opportunities for academic excellence demonstrated by students in the program. The first two academies opened this fall, one in Miami Dade and the other one in Los Angeles, Emanuel High School. The third one is to open next fall, in 1994, in Atlanta. Mr. Chairman, the National Academy Foundation truly endorses and supports the proposed legislation, because we believe it is the salvation for thousands and thousands of young people who are not prepared to go into the world of work. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommit- tee. I and any of the folks accompanying me would be happy to an- swer any questions you might have. At this time, with your permis- sion, I would like to yield to Ms. Ellen Randolph Williams from American Express. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dow may be found in the appen- dix.] Senator Simon. We welcome you, Ms. Williams. I feel good about the $2 million. I feel good about that American Express card in my pocket, frankly. [Laughter.] Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been involved with the academy for some years. I was the Chairman of the board of the academy in Phoenix, AZ, and since moving to New York have joined the academy in Newark, NJ. I am really here today to endorse the academy as a model in the spirit of the proposed School-to Work Opportunities legislation. I would like to tell you why American Express got involved and why I am so personally committed to this type of program. The travel and tourism industry is the largest world industry and the employment needs are tremendous. We are estimating by the year 2010, there will be 24 million people in the United States employed in travel and tourism, and it is really going to require very highly skilled individuals. American Express has major human resources needs, as do our business partners like the air- lines, hotels, the cruise lines, and our future really depends on a very qualified workforce. Therefore, recognizing these needs, in 1986, American Express helped create the Academy of Travel and Tourism, and it was real- ly based on the successful model of the Academy of Finance, and we thought it was a tremendous opportunity for this growth indus- 26 try in providing young folks a career opportunity, because we thought the model which specializes in industry specific curricu- lum, especially trained teachers, an internship for the students, plus a hands-on business involvement was a very successful model. So we joined with the school districts in New York and Miami and also with travel partners and created the academy, and today we have over 40 schools involved in 22 districts and about 1,500 stu- dents involved in the program. You know, we often look outside the United States for education models. But we are proud that the Academy of Travel and Tourism has been replicated in Brazil, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Hong Kong and Hungary. Dr. Dow gave you some information about the program and about the academies, but I would like to tell you why the academy is so critical to American Express and why I think it is such an important model for re-engaging our students in education and preparation for their working lives. You know from the SCANS report and other findings that the aptitudes that are going to be needed are changing. With tech- nology creating competition and really increasing the service re- quirements, we really need employees that can think on their feet, that can use analytical skills, teamwork and ingenuity to meet our customers' needs. We are going to need a lot of creativity, so our employees can really anticipate what our customers need to be suc- cessful. The academies provide industry relevant academic work, plus they give the students an opportunity to have real jobs, and the students are able to learn real content of jobs, and frequently this is the first job or the first paycheck that they have received, and what we see is it helps build their enthusiasm and motivation for future career success. We also have found that the academies work with the educators, too. Specialized training and an opportunity to work closely with industry professionals give the teachers opportunities to keep in touch with the changing skills needed so that their students can be successful. In my previous assignment in Phoenix, I was very close to busi- ness-education partnerships, including the Mayor's Commission on Education Excellence, and I saw lots of programs that could or could not benefit the urban public schools. But I know that the Academy of Travel and Tourism works, because I have experienced the difference it has made in the lives of the individual students. Really, a lot of the students enter very tentatively, with little ex- pectations, and I see over a year's time that they become turned on to school and, most importantly, the potential of the future. I will say that most of the students before the program have no in- terest in going on to higher education, but afterwards they will say because of the academy, they want to go on to either college or a junior college. I am also struck by the academy students' growth and maturity and confidence during their internships. The 2-month experience really opens their eyes to what they can accomplish and the oppor- tunities that lie ahead. And for the employer, it gives a tremendous 27 opportunity to get your employees involved in the mentoring pro- gram, the internships, actually serving on the boards. Our employees are very enthusiastic about the program. In fact, there are 40 mentors in New York. One of my colleagues was a mentor with Michelle and she describes her experience as being as beneficial for her as it was for Michelle. A national school-to-work initiative is important and we feel that it builds on the lessons that we have learned in the academies over the past decade. We need to be able to share this model as well as others and really promote the best practices throughout the country. I want to see academies in every city nationwide, so that our students can get a leg up on their careers and a productive fu- ture. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. >Villiams may be found in the appendix.] Senator Simon. Thank you very much. We will now call on Michelle Yhap. We are very happy to have you here, Michelle, and we thank you for coming. We do not often hear from high school seniors here, and we ought to do that more often. Ms. Yhap. Mr. Chairman, my name is Michelle Yhap. I am a stu- dent in the Academy of Travel and Tourism at Richmond High School in New York City. I thank you for the opportunity to speak for the 6,000 other stu- dents enrolled in the Academy programs around the country. In addition to the courses required for graduation, academy stu- dents take specialized courses, such as geography, tourism, comput- ers and communications, to prepare us to enter the workforce in travel and tourism, hospitality or any other field. Many students in high school do not really see any relationship between what they are learning in school and what they will be doing after graduation. That is one of the things that makes the academy different. Each of us knows that the lessons we learn in our classes can and will be used in the real world of work. For example, an important part of our program is a paid intern- ship in a travel related business. I worked at American Express in the on-site department which oversees American Express offices in other companies, such as ABC, Avon or J. P. Morgan. My duties in- clude preparing travel training manuals, making hotel and car res- ervations and other special projects. During my internship, not only was I able to see the importance of learning how to communicate, dress and speak to adults, but also the usefulness of geography we learned in school to profes- sionals in the travel industry. Other students who interned at hotels, travel agencies or public relations firms found other direct applications for what we learned in school. By the way, I continue to work at American Express after school, earning money for my college education. The internship and the mentoring program that went with it has been one of the most important experiences of my life. It will help me in my career, whatever it may be. Right now, I am learning to- 28 ward some combination in law and tourism. Maybe I will become a lawyer representing American Express. [Laughter.] Another important aspect of the academy is that it gets students to think about and prepare for life after high school. Many of mv classmates had intended to enter college and they will, although probably with different majors than they expected. Quite a few oth- ers have not even considered college, and now that they have been through the program with the guidance and encouragement of our teachers, have decided to go on. I think the academy is a wonderful program and if your legisla- tion will allow other students to have similar experiences, I hope this bill becomes law. Thank you. Senator Simon. We thank you. And meaning no disrespect to the other three of you, maybe your testimony is the most important of anyone's. If you had not been in this program, what difference would this have made in your life? Ms. Yhap. First of all, I knew I wanted to go into law, but being in the travel and tourism program has helped me to be aware of what is out there in the world itself. It has taught me how to act professionally. I have learned how to act among adults, because you do act different, I see. I feel that is something I have learned at work. You usually put on that working personality. I have learned to improve my organizational skills, and I think it has helped me a great deal and I certainly think that I have a great head start toward my future career. Senator Simon. We will get back to you with additional ques- tions. Mr. Graziano? Mr. Graziano. Mr. Chairman, I am Richard Graziano, Director of the New York City Academy of Travel and Tourism. I was also the pilot teacher in this program and I have over 20 years experi- ence in the classroom. I have seen lots of educational trends come and go over the years, but I can tell you that this program really works. It gives students the opportunity to learn academic material which has a direct relationship to the real world. It gives them experience in re- lating constructively with peers and to adults. It develops skills such as communications, both oral and written, a knowledge of our world and a growing industry which might pro- vide them with meaningful careers. It teaches them how to dress and how to behave in a business environment. For teachers, this program provides reality based instructional materials. It also gives them a network of expertise on which to call on the business community and oftentimes — and we have heard many things about burned-out teachers — a new enthusiasm for the job. You can have all the programs you want, but if you do not have enthusiastic working teachers, nothing will work. You have really got to work with those teachers. For the first time in many schools, teachers are teaching in a multidisciplinary fashion, making the connections for themselves and for their students between English and economics, business and geography. 29 Teachers, as part of the national network fostered by Dr. Dow's National Academy Foundation, are able to receive specialized train- ing, brainstorm with colleagues from other schools and districts and have a direct contact with the business community. This makes them better able to instruct their students and make the connections between their classrooms and the world of work. It also fosters a sense of professionalism and pride in what they are doing. Too often, teachers are bombarded with bad news and bad press. The academy offers them an opportunity to participate in an edu- cational effort that can make a difference on the positive side. Speaking for the directors of the academy programs around the country, I can tell you that the program is a model for school re- form. It has the enthusiastic support of school boards and adminis- trators who see it as a vehicle for improving education in their own systems. I thank you and the other committee members for introducing such a bill in the Senate. I urge the committee to report favorably on the bill, the passage of which will make available to large num- bers of students what we already have implemented in New York and many, many other school districts, a winning formula for school -to- work relationships and career preparation. Thank you. Senator Simon. Thank you very much, Mr. Graziano. Dr. Dow, first of all, you mentioned Vernon Jordan and Bill Brock, both of whom are well known in these halls and highly re- spected, and please convey our greetings to them. I was also pleased that, as part of your program, you had this industrial re- view of standards, so you make sure you really do keep up to date on what American Express or anyone else may want. How does the Academy work physically? Is it always a physically separate build- ing from the rest of the high school? Mr. Dow. Our academies work as schools within schools, so the youngsters take their regular classroom plus the additional courses that have been developed for each academy. They also work closely with the staff members, so that we do not build alienation, and the youngsters and the staff members become the best recruiters for new groups of students. One of the things, Mr. Chairman, that may not have been stated as I tried to make sure I stayed within the 5 minutes, the program is that — although it was developed in the early days for youngsters to move from school to the world of work — once we opened the door to opportunities in the workplace and internships, most of the youngsters not only graduated from college, but we have had 90 percent of our youngsters going on to some training beyond high school, going on to college. What we find is that in many of these urban communities, with violence and dope and what have you, they become the standard role model for many, many of the other people. When you have many of these young people who are now coming back into the communities and they may be working at American Express or they may be working in a law firm or they may be working in some other agency or some other corporation, they have an air about them and they start becoming new role models for these young peo- ple. 30 And I believe being a superintendent and being an urban super- intendent in the seventh poorest city, and having received a num- ber of awards and articles for my work with gangs and what have you, the best deterrent we have in this Nation to reduce gang war- fare and violence is preparing young people to move into the world of work, so that the young people in those communities have some different role models other than dope dealers and some of the other negative kinds of things that we see. I am amazed at the fact that these young people will do what- ever they have to do to get into these kinds of programs. I talked with a young girl in New York City who travels 2 hours to get to another school that has an academy program. Just think, 2 hours. I commute from Connecticut and it takes me an hour and a half and I am complaining. This young lady goes 2 hours one way. I spoke with her and she is enthusiastic and she was talking about the fact that she did not know what she was going to do, but she has new hope and opportunity. I think that the two Secretaries speaking about the standards and saying that, while we want to make sure that we do not run any snobbish programs, we want to stretch young people's opportu- nities in this country and high school is just not going to be enough, irrespective of what color you are, irrespective of the socio- economic status. We have to prepare young people to participate in the world market, and the world marketplace has no points for being poor or no points for being black or brown. The work marketplace calls for excellence in performance, and I believe that we must not only develop high standards, but we have to provide the resources and support to those students, and if we do, as we did when I was superintendent in New Haven in the sev- enth poorest city, when we left, because of support of teachers and programming, 85 percent of our graduates were going on to college, going on to additional training. This is not only in New Haven. If we develop those standards and provide the support that the two Secretaries are talking about, as a corporate community like Amer- ican Express has done, we can raise the level of expectation for our students and our youngsters will rise to the level that we demand. Senator Simon. I could not agree with you more. The great divi- sion in our society is between those who have the spark of hope and those who do not, and you are giving people a spark of hope. In, let us say, a high school of 1,000 students, how many would be enrolled in an academy? Mr. Dow. Well, it depends on the high school. For example, we have a high school in Indianapolis with an Academy of Travel and Tourism and there are almost 200 students in it. Senator Simon. Out of how many? Mr. Dow. Out of about I think 930. But it just depends on the school. We are now moving into schools that want one or more academies, because they see such an interest, and I think that it just basically depends on a particular school. Richard can speak to New York City and a couple of those high schools. But we may have, say, from 30 youngsters in one class, maybe up to 75 young- sters in a school within a school model. What we have found is that we have a lot of requests for pro- gramming, and I think what this legislation will do is create oppor- 31 tunities for academies to be developed in Cedar Rapids, and I am using that as an example, all across this land. In addition to that, it will allow the emerging industries the new jobs, new careers, for us to have dollars to develop academies and models so that we are preparing a workforce for the 21st Century. I was a superintendent, and I shall never forget it, and it struck me that we must always look at developing job opportunities. We had a program spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a class called shoe shop, and I was not aware of anyone who was tak- ing their shoes to be fixed. Yet, we were spending thousands and thousands of dollars each year on staff and really had young people going in there in iust a dead-end job. I think with the corporate involvement, making sure that our standards and our curriculum are State of the art throughout the country working on advisory boards with these various academies, providing some support, we are able to really impact upon the lives of young people far beyond anything they would have ever known. Senator Simon. Does your foundation select the director, or is that done by the local schools? Mr. Dow. No, that is all done at the local school level. We work very closely with them with respect to in-service training. We work with them on technical assistance. We work on developing and keeping the curriculum current. We work in helping them put to- gether their business partners, etc, etc. But that is all done at the focal level. Senator Simon. I mention that, because I have taken some time recently and visited 18 schools on the west side and the south side of Chicago, in the area of Chicago where we have our major prob- lems. You mentioned, Mr. Graziano, that enthusiastic teachers and an enthusiastic principle or director makes all the difference in the world. That is one of the things that really hit me as I went through the schools. When one principal told me when I walked into one of the schools and one of the first things that the principal told me was that these students do not have much potential, I knew what I was going to see in the rest of that school. Mr. Dow. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we have opened two new academies with Fannie Mae in Dade County, at the Turner Tech School, and in South Central Los Angeles, at Emanuel Arts. We have opened a new Academy of Travel and Tourism in South Central Los Angeles. We are saying that these programs are very, very important and youngsters will participate. It does not matter if they are in the Dowels of the inner-city, if we provide the support and the nurtur- ing to these students, with enthusiastic teachers and these young- sters can see light at the end of the tunnel, and this is what these programs do. When you talk about jobs, youngsters are concerned and they act up because they do not know what the future holds. This young lady here, Michelle, I am sure can attest to many of her friends, coming in and having no idea. But when they are able to latch on and can see that light at the end of the tunnel, and when you see them come into these programs and they are just raw talent and then you see them at the end, you know that with just 32 a little support and the involvement of the corporate communities and what have you, we can make a significant difference. Senator Simon. Ms. Williams, talking about tourism, one of the things I see, particularly when I register at hotels, is hotel man- agers who frequently say if we could just have an employee who spoke Japanese. The language skill development is one of the things that really is important. You mentioned the advantages to the employer. One of the advantages is you find some good employ- ees out of all of this. Ms. Williams. Absolutely. Senator Simon. How did American Express get involved in all of this? Ms. Williams. We were involved initially in the creation of the Academy of Finance, and then because of our management Senator Simon. Is this in New York City? Ms. Williams. Yes, in New York City. Then in 1986, just really realizing the growth of the travel industry and in talking with a lot of our business partners, we got very involved in creating a model based after the Academy of Finance for travel and tourism for the very reasons that you are saying. We were very interested that we would have the type of qualified workforce that we would need going forward, because, as I men- tioned earlier, technology is taking away -more of the routine type tasks of our employees and we really need problem solvers, service oriented individuals that really can be tomorrow's type of employ- ees, and so that is why we are very excited about this model. Senator Simon. Mr. Graziano, you are asking teachers to make fairly significant changes in how they go about teaching. You men- tioned teachers being enthusiastic. How do you go about selecting teachers? How do you go about training them in a very different way of approaching things? Mr. Graziano. Absolutely. First of all, I think you need to re- member that we are using regularly assigned New York City high school teachers in this program. In some schools, I get some input in choosing the teachers, but in others I have no choice whatsoever. I really believe, though, that teachers want to do a good job, and when they see a program that allows them to make a difference in students' lives, they will get cooking again, in a sense, but you have got to provide them with training, specialized training. You can have all the career academies you want, but if you do not have teachers who know more about the particular industry — most of our teachers I think one has ever worked in the tourism industry, and that means every summer I bring a group of teachers together. We pay them a little bit of money, not a lot, a small sti- pend, and they come in and they listen to experts in the travel and tourism industry, we bring them to the back of the house of the hotel and lead them on a tour, we work on curriculum documents. And I cannot tell you how important it is to hand a teacher wherever possible a curriculum document and make him or her feel that I can teach this class without being 1 day ahead of the stu- dents. It is an awful feeling. I do not know if you have ever been in that situation, but it is an awful feeling. You have got to be able to give them the opportunity to learn more about this industry. It is really very, very important. 33 Senator Simon. Do you use English teachers, history teachers? Mr. Graziano. Primarily, we have English teachers, because we have 1 year of English that takes the place of English in the stu- dent's program, and we use business teachers for our travel and tourism courses and our computer reservations course, and we use social studies courses for the geography course. By the way, mentioning that the other members of the staff will also get involved. In two of my schools, the language department has become involved. Totally apart from the academy, they have in- stituted language courses directed to travel and tourism. Senator Simon. That is great. Mr. Graziano. In Michelle's school this past year, totally as a re- sult of the academy program being present, they have instituted a Japanese course. Senator Simon. Are you studying a foreign language, Michelle? Ms. Yhap. I just finished taking my regents course in Spanish and I have applied for Japanese, Dut I did not get into the class because of my schedule, so hopefully next semester I will be able to get that class. Senator Simon. Can you think of anyone at school, if you could just tell us a story of one person, who but for this program prob- ably would not be going on to college? Can you think of a class- mate? Ms. Yhap. No, because in travel and tourism, we do not only do touring, we also speak about college and we get a chance to visit college campuses. But pertaining to travel and tourism, we would get brochures on hospitality and various things like that, and ev- eryone as far as I know is planning on going to college. Senator Simon. But both you and Dr. Dow mentioned that there are students going on to college who otherwise would not have gone on, and you believe that? You believe people who take advantage of this do enlarge their perspective? Ms. Yhap. I think some people have decided before that they were not going to go to college, because they did not have a sense of direction, they did not know where they were going, and I think the travel and tourism program definitely puts you in a direct path. It gives you a broader knowledge of different industries, not only travel and tourism. A lot of people are attracted to it. Senator Simon. We thank you all very, very much. We appreciate it. We thank you for testifying. More than that, we thank you for what you are doing out there. I think it is exciting. Mr. Dow. Thank you. Senator Simon. Tnank you very much. Our final panel, Linda Morra, Director of Education and Employ- ment Issue Area, Human Resource Division, U.S. General Account- ing Office. Robert Jones, a Corporate Consultant, and I remember him as an Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training. In fact, I remember once calling the Secretary of Labor and urging that he be retained in the Labor Department one time. And Dr. Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program, in California. Unless there is some preference, I am just going to call on Dr. Adler first, since you are first on the lineup there. 34 STATEMENTS OF LAUREL ABLER, SUPERINTENDENT, EAST SAN GRABBEL VALLEY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PRO- GRAM, WEST COVINS, CA; ROBERT T. JONES, CORPORATE CONSULTANT, WASHINGTON, DC; AND LINDA G. MORRA, DI- RECTOR, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUE AREA, HUMAN RESOURCE DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANLED BY NOEMI FRIEDLANDER AND SIGURD R. MLSEN Ms. Adler. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak this afternoon. Just to fill you in, I am the Superintendent of the East San Ga- briel Valley Regional Occupational Program, which is a consortium of programs in schools in the eastern section of Los Angeles Coun- ty. We serve 1,700 schools, providing employment training. Many of our students are highly at risk. There are a lot of gangs in the area. Many of the high schools have dropout rates approaching the 40 to 50 percent rate. We are heavily involved with business, as our preceding panel was, and we are currently a national demonstration project in the U.S. Department of Education in school-to-work transition and prep, and our SCANS demonstration site is in Region 9 of the De- partment of Labor. We are very happy to see that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act as it is written is beginning to address that essential linkage that you absolutely have to have, if you are going to have the tran- sition of school-to-work. What we would like to bring forth, however, is just that: We think it could be even more effective, if some of the descriptions of the connecting links between school and work were put in there. We realize that we want to keep flexibility, but sometimes some good ideas need to be at least mentioned. The way it is currently written, business and industry is men- tioned and described at the beginning phase in the planning and development and, of course, heavily described in the work-based phase, but there is not a lot of description of activity that could be occurring at the school-based level. Our project has been working over the last 7 or 8 years in follow- ing students who have actually had part of their training, and this is prior to employment in a work-based situation, so I guess you could call that part of the school-based phase. However, the school then becomes the community and that relationship is somewhat similar to academies, where your school is literally anywhere, and businesses actually donate time, they donate space to provide in- struction, and this is done prior to employment. But for many of the students, it becomes a wonderful oppor- tunity, because of the fact that when that job opening is there, many times our students actually get them. The way the work- based phase is described right now, it lists several activities and one says paid work experience. There is no mention anywhere of things like business internships and business-based learning. Some people have read in California and had some concern that maybe that is not going to be allowed, because in California it is a very strong model. We have approximately 20,000 businesses a year that do volunteer to become work-basea training sites, and I 35 do not see that as much. It is not mentioned and I do not think a lot of people are going^ to realize that this is a very viable option, and that if you do not tie in business throughout the entire process of the education, you are missing a tremendous resource. We have in our project about 500 businesses a year that volun- teer their time to assist in instruction, and this is prior to any stu- dent being employed. All of our follow-up, by the way, is done through the University of California at Riverside, and we have been following some students since 1987 and using control groups of kids from the same schools. What we find is that the kids that go through the business-based learning concept graduate from high school at much higher rates than their peers. They get full-time employment at much higher rates, earn more money, get promoted sooner. But, interestingly enough, they are more likely also to be in college, and so it has not become an either/or thing, where now I am doing well in business, I do not need education. Somehow, everything is being reinforced and their need to improve is definitely there. The only other suggestion that we would have would be maybe some descriptions of business incentives. As you know, California is still going through the recession. We are one of the last ones. The unemployment rate is still very high. A lot of businesses that might be willing to do some volunteer work and mentor a student do not have a job opening right now, and we would not want to leave that out. In addition, even incentives for hiring students I think need to be described a little bit more, that may not even cost money. For example, use of targeted job tax credit, that is already on the books and definitely could be used in conjunction with this act in order to provide incentives to employers. Those kinds of linkages I think are also important to mention as possibilities. That part that says connecting I think needs to be broadened out and maybe some examples of the kinds of connections with busi- ness and instruction in addition to employment. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Adler may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Thank you. If I may give an assignment to a school superintendent, I think many of the things you are talking about really ought to be part of the report that we make to the Senate. If you could jot down, when you get back to California or on the plane going back, some of the specific kinds of things you are talking about, we would be happy to have that. Ms. Adler. Right. Of course, the university has thousands of pages which I know you are not interested in reading. We will con- dense it down, because it is based on results, and so we can say with a certain amount of confidence that business participation and instructional levels makes a huge difference, particularly for at-risk kids, a tremendous impact. Senator Simon. Roberts Jones, it is good to have you back here again in your new capacity. Mr. Jones. I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes with you. I would like to make clear today that I am here in the 36 capacity of urging the Senate's attention on a piece of legislation that I think is critical to young people today and to the workplace, particularly in a world that is changing very greatly. If our young people are to have the kinds of American opportunities that we ex- pect, systems like this encased in our school system are absolutely essential. Let me State at the outset that I offer my congratulations and support to Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich for their aggressive leadership in the whole workforce agenda, which is constituted by basic education standards in the first place, school- to- work second, the standards bill third, and the worker adjustment system. They should always be viewed as a totality, because they each play an important role, if we are to get young people all the way success- fully into the workplace. But my comments here today are directed specifically at the school-to-work proposal and specifically at some of the issues Dr. Adler has just pointed out. I think the basic bill as it is before the committee is terrific foundation, can be built on, and it should be passed, but it is missing I think some important ingredients to make this bill do what people have so eloquently stated that it should do. At the beginning, let me State that I think a school-to-work sys- tem is an education system. It is not a workplace readiness bill, it is not cooperative education and it is not "some of the things that we have experienced in the past. It is a very different piece of legis- lation, and that should be stated quite clearly in the legislation and we should look at, if that is the case, what do we expect from it. Its purpose generically is to keep young people in school who might otherwise fail, either physically dropping out or mentally dropping out, to provide them a more practical based curriculum for staying in and focusing on it, to achieve education standards when they might not have otherwise, at the same time to achieve work readiness standards, so should they come out deciding to go to work, they are prepared, if they decide to go to college, they are prepared, or tech school, they are prepared. But to accomplish that, the only way to do it is to assume, num- ber one, that it is an educational modality, it is simply a different way of getting people through 12th grade standards, and to do that we have to insure that this bill contains certain requirements that make that program successful and doesn't fall into dispute of pro- grams like we have had in the past. I would urge that this bill as it is put together contain very spe- cific standards as to what we expect such a program to have. Let me list what some of them are that I think are not in here cur- rently that could improve it. One, successful programs like this all around the world and in this country involve a formal compact between parents, employers, schools and students as to what they expect. If indeed you are to be allowed to work and go to school in tandem, to spend a few hours in school in a different modality, we expect you to maintain attendance, to maintain a minimum grade average, etc. We expect employers to provide formal training, as well as expe- rience. We expect the school system to provide a curriculum and a support system that provides this environment, and we expect par- 37 ents to respect both sides of the equation and support the young people. The object here is, if you want a different modality to complete your education, there is a quid pro quo. If we do not build that in, we do not have a system.. It should spell out what those student responsibilities are. Dr. Dow said that if we set higher standards, they will reach them. That is true, but let us spell them out. Let us start treating people with some respect and to set a set of stand- ards for the students about attendance, about grades, about their participation that they will reach. The school itself is culpable for the program. We should set standards in this bill as to what, if you are to have a formal school- to-work program, that is. You will have a different curriculum, you will allow different hours and different relationships between the work setting and the school setting, you will have a series of these kinds of things spelled out. The bill calls for career majors. I do not think that is a practical thing to do and I think it leads to the arguments of tracking at the 11th grade, when we try to create separate curriculums in high school on a presumption that a 16-year-old is going to know when they are 17, 18, 19 or 20 what they want to be doing, and I do not think that is a necessary addition. I think it is an enormous com- plication that probably does not have a great deal to add to it. That does not mean we should not be using contextual curricu- lums whenever we can. Every time we have an opportunity to teach people algebra through a more practical setting, we should do that, and particularly in this kind of program. Employer expectations is the same thing. We need to insure not only the normal safe and healthy workplace and what we expect of employers, but we need to make sure in this bill is employers who have upwardly mobile occupations, new occupations, and who have some history of hiring and growing, and not just using people in an ill-intended way and to eliminate unskilled and low-wage and outmoded jobs. The GAO folks will testify that these programs work best when there is as third party overseer of the school and the employment community and the student. I would encourage us to recognize that in the bill and insure that there is a quality control standard that TTlAiCPS SGT1SG Last, this bill I think, as Secretary Riley pointed out, needs to be linked to the voluntary skill standards bill. Where an industry has set those standards, we should insure that the curriculum in the schools is designed to move people toward them and, in fact, hopefully get them up to the first rung on that certificate ladder. Let me say philosophically, on the funding, Mr. Chairman, you and I have discussed this for many years. This is a unique oppor- tunity. Short-term programs for out-of-school students are not suc- cessful. This is an opportunity to begin to move back into the school system and into the workplace constructive programs that will assist people and preclude the kinds of problems we have had in the past. We ought to begin to look at using the billions of dollars that we have currently in the public school system and the billions we have in JTPA and JOBS and Chapter 1 and everything else in these 38 kinds of modalities, not separate programs outside the system. Within the school, a different fundable process and a different mechanism for completing graduation standards and achieving workplace standards is a viable and important outcome. This is an important bill. It does not set a different set of stand- ards. In fact, it is an appropriate set for the Federal Government. The most important thing in this system is that it not be allowed through its flexibility to denigrate into simply a work experience program or a co-op ed program like we have seen in the past. The only way to do that I know is to identify exactly what its purpose is, which I think is an education program, and to set those standards and to hold both the students and employers and schools accountable for what that is, and to maximize the use of current moneys within the systems for dealing with people in that process, and not let it become a separate off- to-the- side one-more-time pro- gram for taking people out of the main stream, but recognize it as one of what should be several new ways of letting people reach those standards and link it to the workplace. Thank you. . [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. We thank you. As is frequently the case, GAO gets the last word here. Ms. Morra, we are going to call on you. Ms. Morra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by just introducing Sigurd Nilsen to my left, who is Assistant Director at GAO in charge of our school-to- work transi- tion work, and Noemi Friedlander to his left, who led the study that I am going to talk about today. I am going to summarize my comments, but will ask that it be included. Senator Simon. We will put your full statement in the record. Ms. Morra. Thank you. We are pleased to be here today to discuss the findings of our recent report on State comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies. We believe our work can provide some perspective, as the committee considers S. 1361. We identified components of a comprehensive school-to-work training strategy by reviewing the literature and consulting with experts. We determined how many States have adopted the components of comprehensive strategies by conducting a telephone survey of all 50 States and DC. We also visited States and school districts that were implementing comprehensive strategies. Our analysis of data from the National Center for Education Sta- tistics showed that even though American high schools direct most of their resources toward preparing students for college, few incom- ing high school freshmen, only about 15 percent, go on to graduate and then obtain a 4-year college degree within 6 years of high school graduation. A substantial number of the remaining 85 per- cent wander between different educational and employment experi- ences, many seemingly ill-prepared for the workplace. Accordingly, some States are developing comprehensive school-to- work transition strategies to better prepare high school students for workplace requirements. While no State had fully implemented such a strategy at the time of our survey, there were 4 States — 39 Florida, Oregon, Tennessee and Wisconsin — who have recently en- acted statutory provisions that require State officials to develop and implement these strategies. These States are now taking ac- tion on the four interrelated components of comprehensive a scnool- to-work training transition strategy. These are processes for devel- oping academic and occupational competencies, career education and development, extensive links between school systems and em- ployers, and meaningful workplace experiences. In these States, implementation progress to date has been lim- ited, partly because of the newness of the strategies. The most in- tense activity to date has been in developing academic and occupa- tional competencies that are expected of all students. This is the first component. For example, Oregon is one of several States de- veloping student graduation standards. The State plans to issue certificates of advanced mastery to those students that can show that they meet the standards. Progress is more limited on the other three components. For ex- ample, Florida is the only State of the 4 with a comprehensive ca- reer education guidance and development program, the second com- ponent, and it predates the State's comprehensive school-to-work transition strategy. As for establishing links between schools and employers, the third component, only Oregon and Wisconsin have established joint State-business-labor bodies to systematically coordinate and mon- itor school-to-work transition efforts. Concerning providing mean- ingful workplace experiences to students, the fourth component, new activities such as youth apprenticeship programs are just starting, and on a very limited basis, at that. For example, Florida and Wisconsin each had their first 20 youth apprentices in the 1992-1993 school year. Although we visited school districts that the States identified as exemplary, these districts, like the States themselves, are in the initial stages of implementing their comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies. Similar to the approach at the State level, the principal focus of the districts is on implementing the first component, a process to provide and demonstrate occupational competencies. The State and local officials, teachers, business and labor representatives and ex- perts that we talked with identified several obstacles encountered in developing and implementing school-to-work transition initia- tives. For example, they mention lack of information on lessons learned by others, uncertain State funding for initiatives, and reluctance of some employers, especially small businesses, to offer workplace op- portunities to youth, because of the management time and the cost. We find that the three basic components that S. 1361 would re- quire are consistent with the four components identified in our re- port as necessary to a comprehensive strategy and, thus, we sup- port the overall direction of this proposal. The bill also addresses two concerns that we raise, namely that planning and implementation grants given only for comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies, and that where the emphasis should be on linking plans and actions with the components toward the goal of having all youth possess good academic skills, market- 40 able occupational skills workplace behaviors, also that evaluation grants be made for studies designed to measure meaningful out- comes, such as better employment and earnings patterns. One issue that we would like to raise in closing is the level of emphasis that should be placed on career guidance and develop- ment and how early in a child's education it should start. Many of the experts we talked to recommended that all students participate in such programs before the 8th grade and preferably even earlier. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Morra may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Thank you very much. When you talk about the two States that have State coordinating bodies, is this a success? Either you or Mr. Nilsen or Ms. Fried- lander or any one of the three of you may respond. Ms. Morra. Let me start with Oregon. Oregon has a Workplace Quality Council that has 21 members and, in a sense, it brings to- gether all key actors in the system. In that sense, it can be consid- ered a success. It brings together — I think 5 members of the panel are from industry, from business and 5 members are from labor or community service organizations — it brings together the elemen- tary program, the secondary program, the-postsecondary education program. It brings together people from the job training State pro- grams, and even brings together people from the corrections de- partment. So it is trying to get people to really coordinate and think about how to systematically approach the problem, and that is important. Do you want to add anything? Mr. Nilsen. I would just want to point out that it is early on. These States are just beginning to implement, so it is hard to tell whether or not they would be successful, but I echo what Ms. Morra said, that it is right, getting a broad-based, a number of dif- ferent people from different areas together, because I think what you need and what the bill that you have also suggests, a lot of dif- ferent ways to approach this. Senator Simon. I notice in your report the whole question of dis- seminating information about this is very key, and my assump- tion— and Bob Jones has had experience on this, too — my assump- tion is that if we provide a modest amount of money out there, the information spreads pretty quickly that money is available for cer- tain kinds of programs. But are there special things that we should be doing in terms of information dissemination? Ms. Morra. I think that this whole area to some extent is un- charted territory. No one knows truly what is going to work and how well, and there does need to be information dissemination about lessons that others learned. What we heard from people that we talked to was that this infor- mation really did not spread, they did not know what other people's experiences were. So we think that one of the ways that the Fed- eral Government could help is doing more systematic dissemination of information about what works and what does not and what peo- ple's experiences have been. There Is a lot of flexibility, and there 41 are a lot of different models that may emerge from this under a general framework. Senator Simon. Dr. Adler, what percentage of your students are involved in this kind of a program? Ms. Adler. From the 17 high schools, probably at any one time approximately a third of the students are involved. Senator Simon. And is this a program that can reach a signifi- cantly higher percentage, or is that the limit? Mr. Adler. I think its potential is just beginning. One of the basic premises of how our demonstration project operates is on the basis of partnerships, and those are partnerships with business and in- dustry, as I just explained, approximately 500 of them, but also partnerships with other community agencies and public agencies such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Rehabili- tation, and also voluntary agencies like the National Council on Aging who provide mentors. What we find is that the more people in the community that get involved in organizations, you also ex- pand the resources, so that you are able to pull from a multitude of resources to serve students, and not just one. We are not using any one source of funds to do this, so the oppor- tunity basically can be very large. What you have to do is have a willingness to work together and give people recognition for what they are doing and an opportunity to be equal partners. Senator Simon. You heard Mr. Jones' recommendations. Any re- sponse? I saw you jotting down some notes. Ms. Adler. Yes, and then I got to realize half-way through he has probably got it all written somewhere. Well, I think the first one was the formal compact. That is the basis of everything, is that everything is written down. A lot of people say how can you get businesses involved to do all of this volunteer work, it cannot be done. The answer is, first of all, the role is very much explained to them and it is exactly what they are responsible for. Those are written down, what the role of the school and the student is, what the role of the teacher and the role of the business. Part of that is to protect them against liability, because that is their biggest fear, but also so that they are not being given some- thing that they cannot handle and also specifically what skills or what competencies in a course they are responsible for, also what they are going to get out of it and what we are all going to get out of it. So with every organization in our partnership, we have a memo- randum of understanding with each other and all of the other part- ners, where we all understand what each other's roles are and what our accountability is to one another. Now, that does not solve our problems, obviously. But as you get out there and get real en- thusiastic and start getting busy, you can go back to base one and start saying, well, is this where we are supposed to be. So I think all of the rest builds on that. But if you do not have those formal- ized agreements, you do not really get very far. They have to stress equal partnership and you have to put turf aside and ego aside, and that is what I think the formal partnerships can do. Senator Simon. Mr. Jones, you mentioned four kind of general points which I thought were impressive and we may want to incor- 42 porate in some way. One of the problems is — and you can under- stand this more than most people— we want to make sure we are getting the program we want, but we also want to achieve flexibil- ity and we do not want to create a new program at the Federal level. We do not want to all of a sudden have a new division in the Department of Labor or the Department of Education. You have had experience in all of this. Like the formal compact, is this something we put in the report, do we put in the bill? If it were Senator Roberts Jones, and I would not wish this upon you, but if it were, would you make this part of the legislation? You un- derstand the general nature of the problem. Mr. Jones. Absolutely, and the point of my being here today and the point of the comment is I think the decision should be made and put in the bill as to what this program is, is it an education program or a workplace program or something tnat lies in between. I feel quite strongly, and I think the history of the programs are that they are an education modality and they need to be in the sys- tem, you do not need separate programs, agencies or other things, Federal or local, and I think Dr. Adler has made that point. It is in the basic system. It is a part indeed of your education debate that says, look, if I want to achieve 100 percent of these kids com- ing up to standard, they all learn differently. We have about a mil- lion kids each year that are in general ed and voc ed and set-aside programs that can be accessing this program or perhaps another model. But if you do that, that is important and it should be in the legislation. Then I think the things you want to do to separate this from those other programs, the compact, the role of each of these other f»eople and the standards that should be met should be in the leg- ation. How they do that, the various local modalities for putting it in place, how much is in the workplace and how much is in school and a million different ways in flexible design. But we need to make sure the flexibility is not an excuse for failure to meet the kids' needs to bring them up to standard. This point that we have got to start taking responsibility, that when that child walks out of that school, if he is not prepared ei- ther for further education or the workplace, we have discriminated against them on purpose. We know what those standards are and we know what this program should accomplish, and you cannot let it through flexibility just be nothing to anyone. So I am perhaps a little out of my traditional role, but I believe quite strongly if it is our intent to legislate such a program, and indeed you and I do not have to do this, the school could do it today, but if we are going to legislate it and if we are going to put some incentive money behind it, then let us change the system and set some higher standards and hold them to it. Senator Simon. We thank you very, very much, all of you, for your work and your testimony. Our hearing stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] THE SCHOOL-TO- WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1993 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1993 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in Room SR-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Paul Simon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Simon, Bingaman, Harkin, Durenberger, and Kassebaum. Opening Statement of Senator Simon Senator Simon. The subcommittee hearing will come to order. We are continuing our hearings on the School-to-Work Opportuni- ties Act. Let me thank my colleagues of both parties who have been cosponsors of this. I am pleased to say it has broad support and I think we will be able to move fairly rapidly in terms of getting it reported out of committee and moved on to the Senate floor. We clearly have to make education a greater priority and one of the things that we also have to do is to focus a great deal more on those who may not be college bound. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act does not preclude people who participate from continuing on to college, but does anticipate encouraging a great many young people who may not go on to col- lege to also continue their educational efforts. We have a large number of witnesses today. I will just enter my statement in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Simon follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Simon The challenge our Nation faces in remaining competitive in the global economy is clear. We must invest in our young people. We must prepare every American for employment and productive citi- zenship. President Clinton has made meeting this challenge a national priority. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is a critical compo- nent in this effort. I commend Secretary Reich and Secretary Riley as well as many of my colleagues — particularly Senator Kennedy and Senator Wofford — for their leadership on this issue. (43) 44 The School-to-Work Opportunities Act will create opportunities for all youth to be successful whether they choose to go on to fur- ther education or directly into the workforce. If we are going to succeed in these efforts, the School-to-Work initiative must truly be collaborative. The participation of business, labor and education — from planning and development to implemen- tation— is essential. The cooperation of state agencies and the com- mitment of federal, state and local government is also important. In addition, if this legislation is going to be truly accessible to all young people, non-profit and community-based organizations as well as others must play a role in shaping School-to-Work pro- grams. I am pleased to have such a diverse group of witnesses before us today. This morning's witnesses represent a broad cross-section of many of the groups whose active participation and input are criti- cal. I'd particularly like to welcome Mayor Bruce Todd of Austin, Texas. Austin is moving ahead in the area of School-to-Work. I commend his leadership and look forward to hearing his testimony. In addition to the witnesses here today, I have received written testimony on behalf of a number of groups: the Business Round- table; the National Education Association; the National Association of Government Labor Organizations; the National Urban League; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the National Associa- tion of State Councils on Vocational Education; the Vocational In- dustrial Clubs of America; Girls, Incorporated; the National Col- laboration for Youth; the school-to- work initiatives in Louisville, Kentucky; and the Flint Roundtable and Genesee Area Focus Council school-to-work program in Flint, Michigan. I will submit this testimony into the record. I believe we can and should move this bill quickly. And as we prepare to mark-up the legislation, I intend to incorporate many of the ideas and suggestions made during these hearings and in feed- back we have received. With the leadership of the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with continued support from the business, education and labor communities; from community -based organizations, state and local governments and others wno have had experience in developing comprehensive school-to-work programs, I believe we can soon make the School-to- Work Opportunities Act law. Senator Simon. Senator Bingaman, do you want to add anything here? Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I just compliment you on your continued leadership on this issue. I notice I am not yet a co- sponsor. If you could add me as a cosponsor of your bill, I would appreciate it. Senator Simon. We will be pleased to do that. Let me just add that it has been a pleasure to have Senator Bingaman on this Labor and Human Resources Committee and one of the cosponsors I see is here, Senator Durenberger from Minnesota. Do you have any opening statement here, Senator Durenberger? Opening Statement of Senator Durenberger Senator Durenberger. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask you to put it in the record. 45 Senator Simon. We will do that. Senator DURENBERGER. Just let me thank you for taking the time to have the hearing and for the witness list which includes Dave Johnson from the University of Minnesota's National Transi- tion Network. The reason that I am the Republican cosponsor of the bill really goes back to the fact that Minnesota, or Mark and I are involved in this, is that our States, Oregon and Minnesota, are the ones that have probably been among the leaders in the Na- tion. And I think you will find strong support from management, labor, education, a variety of our communities. And David will talk about some of that today. You will hear about the work that Larry Perlman at Ceridian has been doing and a variety of people in the community in Minnesota. Frankly, in a little conversation some of us had yesterday with the Secretary of Labor, we encouraged him and the Democratic leadership to give this a priority in bur consideration. I mean if we really want to move something that is critically important right now this and some of the dislocated worker legislation and so forth would be very, very important. And I think that there is enough of consensus in America today and I hope we hear that, that this probably ought to be a priority, a piece of public policy that we ought to move as quickly as possible. We will do everything we can here to get whatever Republican consensus you need to make sure it stays bipartisan [The prepared statement of Senator Durenberger follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Durenberger i. introduction Chairman Simon, thank you for inviting me to join your sub- committee for this morning's hearings. You and I have enjoyed a productive working relationship on so many education issues, and the same has been true of our work together on the School-To- Work Opportunities Act. I have great respect for your leadership in this area. D. WELCOME DR. DAVID JOHNSON FROM UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I want to welcome Dr. David Johnson from the University of Minnesota's "National Transition Network." I'm honored that you could be here today to testify about the importance of ensuring that the School-To-Work Opportunities Act promotes opportunities for all Americans, including those young Americans with disabilities. Only 56% of students with disabilities complete school. That is well below the national average. Therefore, I believe we must do everything in our power — as this bill moves through the legislative process — to ensure that students with disabilities have full and meaningful access to the training programs and opportunities made possible by the School-To-Work Opportunities Act. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to welcome Dr. Johnson here today. I also want to note his deep involvement in designing the Teamsters charter school proposal in Minnesota, "Skills for Tomor- row," which uses apprenticeship training as a central part of its mission. 46 As Ranking Member of the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I want my colleagues to know how important Dr. Johnson's contributions — and the contributions of the entire dis- ability community — have been already in helping us to strengthen this legislation. Shortly after this hearing, Senator Harkin and I plan to submit a number of proposed modifications to the School- To-Work Opportunities Act based on the recommendations and guidance we have received from the disability community. HI. ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM MINNESOTA BUSINESS AND LABOR LEADERS Mr. Chairman, I have received a great deal of constructive input on the School-To-Work Opportunities Act from many people in my home state of Minnesota who have been deeply involved in appren- ticeships and school-to-work training at the state and local level. I particularly want to recognize the contributions of Tom Trip- lett, President of the Minnesota Business Partnership, Lawrence Perlman, CEO of Ceridian Corporation, and Jean Dunn, Executive Director of the Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask your permission to have placed in the record some written comments about the School- To-Work Opportunities Act that I received from Tom Triplett, and a recent speech by Larry Perlman about the important role that school -to- work training plays in empowering workers and promot- ing U.S. competitiveness. rv. "dear republican colleague" letter sent last week by SENATORS DURENBERGER AND HATFDDLD Before I turn the microphone back to you, Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention that Senator Hatfield and I sent a letter last week to our Republican colleagues, asking them to join us in cosponsor- ing this important legislation. I understand that a copy of that letter has been made available to the press, and I want to ask unanimous consent that a copy also be made part of the record of these hearings. As that letter points out, I decided to become the lead Republican co-sponsor of the School-to- Work Opportunities Act because the bill is consistent with basic Republican principles like bottom-up pro- gram development, strong community involvement, program con- solidation, and a limited role for the Federal Government. In addition, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act helps address the very real need: (1) to give the young people of America the tools they need to succeed in the workplace; and (2) to give U.S. employ- ers a better way to get the skilled workforce they must have in order to thrive in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. V. CONCLUSION Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this important legislation, and in work- ing constructively to make the bill even stronger. Thank you. I look forward to today's testimony. Senator Simon. I thank you very much and I am pleased to say we have had strong support from business groups, labor groups 47 and others. We are very pleased to have as our first two witnesses, the Honorable Bruce Todd, the Mayor of Austin, TX, and Edward Pauly, Senior Research Associate, Manpower Demonstration Re- search Corporation of New York City. Mayor Todd, we will hear from your first? STATEMENTS OF HON. BRUCE TODD, MAYOR, AUSTIN, TX, AND EDWARD PAULY, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, MAN- POWER DEMONSTRATION RESEARCH CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NY Mayor Todd. Mr. Senator and members of the subcommittee, my name is Bruce Todd, Mayor of the City of Austin and the chair of the Committee on Jobs, Education and Family in the US Con- ference of Mayors. And I appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. Senator Simon. If I may just interrupt. We will follow the five- minute rule for our witnesses. We will enter your full statements in the record. You may summarize your statement, proceed how- ever you wish, but we will, for reasons of time, follow the five- minute rule here today. Forgive me for interrupting, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Todd. That is quite all right, Senator. As Mayor of a city where democracy is practiced, I always appreciate brevity over sub- stance in many cases. [Laughter.] And the substance has been en- tered into the record and I appreciate that. My brief comments would be as follows. If there was a title to be given to my comments, it would be about, not only equal oppor- tunity, but equal quality opportunity. Certainly the issue of transi- tion to the work force is very critical to our community and all urban cities and rural cities across the country. We know that we spend a great deal of time focusing on those students who will be college bound. But in my opinion as you said in your opening comments, we do very little in many cases before the fact to deal with the students who choose not to be college bound and are as equally deserving of a good education and importantly, a good opportunity to have the skills necessary to go into the work force at the appropriate time. We know that if a student is not motivated, the likelihood is — whether it is in Austin, Texas, or any other city — they are going to drop out of school. And many of those who stay in school will only go through the twelfth grade. They deserve a quality edu- cation, quality training, and a quality job in the same way that those who are college educated. In Austin, fully one-fourth of our students do drop out of school and another quarter only finish high school. In my opinion, our so- ciety has treated those very much as the forgotten half. We know that traditional job training procedures have not worked. While summer jobs are great, they are not a life time earning capacity, and the ability to make sure that we treat these students before the fact, during their learning years, particularly the years in the 9th grade through the 12th grade and beyond, in terms of being able to acquire a skill, is of critical, critical importance. We cannot wait until these students have become dropouts, of- tentimes into the criminal justice system, before we decide that they need an opportunity to hold a good job. That is why we are 48 supportive of this legislation. It established the national framework to join with local partnerships to make this possible. In Austin we have a Mayor's task force on apprenticeships. Our program is going to be developed and modeled much after the sys- tems they have in Germany and other countries in Europe whereby we take children as they are entering the 9h grade and when a choice is made by them and their parents, after consultation with their counselors, decide to go the career track, begin that program. We believe that it is critically important. There are only a few brief points I would want to make about the process. One is that we believe in our community and others, it must involve the private sector. It must involve the industries in which those kids will ultimately go to work or it will not succeed. They know the training that is necessary. They have the motiva- tional skills within their industries and within their individual companies, and they can help it succeed. It must not be slip shot. It must have quality from the very start. If it is not built with the same quality standards that exist in our colleges and universities, in my opinion, it will fail. And our pro- gram will be designed to do that and I believe those around the country will. It must have industry-level collaboration. It must not be a busi- ness-by-business approach. It must be by industry because the abil- ity to develop those base skills to enter the health care business, to enter the high tech business, I think it is critically important to its ultimate success. It must have high standards, standards that are measurable and can be accountable. It also must encourage education beyond high school. In Germany vou will see students in the 9th, 10th, 12th grades working side-by-side with people who may be in their 20's or early 30's who decided to switch occupations. We believe the ability to integrate that sort of cross training, that sort of job trans- ference skills might be critically important. It also must be on a scale where the size of the fix matches the size of the problem. In other words, it must be broad based enough not just to take into account the hard core unemployed, although those are of critical concern to us, but also to be massive enough as developed on a local basis to address the issues at hand. We believe that the focus on issues of high poverty or those who have already dropped out of school is of critical importance as we approach the issue. Oftentimes I am asked what my job is about. It is about quality of life in our community and if quality of life is indeed the goal of success or the measure of success of my job, education and job training is very much a component of that. Because we know that these children, these soon to be adults, if not educated properly and if not trained properly to hold a job, will enter into the element of our society that forms a drain on our communities across the Na- tion. I believe that our ability to address the issues of youth, the is- sues of job training as proposed by this particular legislation is critical to the future in Austin, TX, and in communities across the land. I compliment you, Senator, and the other cosponsors on the wisdom in proposing this legislation. The US Conference of Mayors 49 and all mayors across the country will be dedicated to making sure that we hem you in getting it passed. Thank you very much. Senator SIMON. We thank you. [The prepared statement of Mayor Todd may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Mr. Pauly, not Mayor Pauly. I do not want to get in trouble with Mayor Dinkins and Mr. Guiliani here, since you are from New York City. But we welcome you here, Mr. Pauly. Mr. Pauly. Thank you, Senator. My name is Edward rauly, and I am the senior education researcher for the Manpower Demonstra- tion Research Corporation. MDRC is a nonprofit organization that develops and studies promising social programs aimed at improv- ing the prospects of disadvantaged Americans. Let me begin by saying that Senator Simon and the subcommit- tee deserve a tribute for their leadership in this area. First in de- veloping the Career Pathways Act and now in sponsoring the School-to- Work Opportunities Act. That is a major service. Let me briefly summarize my statement. MDRC is currently completing a two-year study of 16 local school to work programs, including examples of all of the types of school-to-work programs that the proposed legislation is intended to support — youth appren- ticeship programs, such as printing apprenticeships in Wisconsin; career academies, including the health academy in Oakland, Cali- fornia; tech prep programs in Indiana and Soutn Carolina; occupa- tional academic cluster programs such as those promoted by Or- egon State-wide reforms; and restructured voc-ed programs in Mas- sachusetts and Colorado. All of these programs combine occupa- tional-related instruction in high school with work place learning provided by local employers. We conducted two rounds of field research visits to each of the 16 programs and interviewed teachers, employers, students, par- ents and other key participants and learned all that we could about how these programs work and the lessons that they have to teach in developing programs for other places. Our most important finding, Senators, is that people across the country are proving that it is feasible to create innovative school- to-work programs that provide high school students with new learning opportunities by linking occupational related instruction in high school with experience of learning in work places. What re- mains to be seen is whether these and other school-to-work pro- grams can expand to serve large numbers of students across the country. Let me briefly summarize some of our findings. First we found that allowing flexible, local implementation of programs, while re- quiring some core program elements, both promotes local creativity and ownership and maintains the essential characteristics of these programs. We found programs tended not to use pure approaches, pure youth apprenticeship or pure tech prep programs. What they did was to choose components to suit local circumstances. In other words, they customized their programs. However, there did seem to be some major elements that showed up in almost all of the programs that really contributed to their strength, although they were implemented in different ways. These included integrating academic and vocational learning within high 50 school courses, creating strong instructional programs overall that tended to increase the number of math and science courses that students would take over and above what they would have taken without the programs; well designed work place learning experi- ences that had written training agreements and careful monitoring to assure the quality of what was happening in the work place; extra support for students that often took the form of a school-with- in-a-school organizational scheme and frequent checkups on stu- dents' progress. We found that this quality of extra support that went beyond that found in elective types of school-to-work courses was far more important than previous research had found. And also career explo- ration and careful preparation of students for their activities in the work place to make sure that they can contribute in the work place and that their relationships with participating employers supported the continued progress of the program. So we recommend that Federal policies should promote these kinds of common themes and core elements, but should avoid pre- scribing an overall tightly specified program model. Second, Senator, we found that serving a broad cross section of students, including disadvantaged and Tow-achieving students is desirable and is achievable and that these programs can also make college a possibility for such students. The 16 programs that we studied served a wide variety of students without creating difficul- ties, so we found the arguments that low-achieving and disadvan- tages students are not able to benefit from these programs, not to have weight in the 16 programs that we looked at. There are some strategies that can enable these students to do well in these programs, and I have listed them in my prepared statement. In particular, we found that programs that start early in high school, that start in grade 9 or 10, catch these students be- fore they become disengaged from school and before they become inclined to drop out. When the tech prep program was authorized by Congress some years ago, the language in the bill specified that programs had to start by grade 11. Many programs took that as the standard, rath- er than as a minimum. And I would urge the committee to consider sending a signal to avoid that in this program. Starting early really can make a difference for disadvantaged young people. Third, we found that intensive doses of staff time and extra fund- ing are needed to start up school-to-work programs and provide on- going support. And I recognize that this proposed legislation is not intended to provide full funding for these programs; it is intended to leverage existing resources. However, if school-to-work programs are to be successfully implemented, there will be some key compo- nents, including the funding for hiring program coordinators, pro- viding assistance for employers to design and maintain high qual- ity programs, and to provide for the integration of academic and vo- cational learning that funding will have to be found for. We also wanted to underline for the committee the importance of helping school-to-work programs recruit employers because a large number of employers will be needed to make this initiative a success. Intermediary groups, local chambers and industry asso- 51 ciations are crucial if we are going to be extremely successful, in recruiting employers for these programs. I thank the committee. Senator Simon. We thank you very, very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pauly may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Semon. In the 16 locations that you are talking about, what percentage of the students did you reach in those schools? Mr. Pauly. Senator, the programs varied greatly in size. The programs that provided the most intensive training in work places tended to start small and many still are relatively small, serving 5 to 15 students. The larger programs tended to be tech prep pro- grams and career academies which involve 50 to 100 students per class group; that is, 9th or 10th graders, and then continuing through the high school program. So they were able to serve more students. They tended to offer a less intensive work place compo- nent, typically a summer internship after the 11th grade. But in ord.er to get a large number of students served more quickly, it appears that those programs do have an advantage. So there is, I think, a tradeoff between serving a large number of stu- dents with perhaps a less intensive or initially less intensive work place component or providing much more intensive work place learning but doing so for, at least initially, a necessarily smaller number of students. Senator Simon. One of the things we have found in the areas where we have had these programs is, for example, math scores improve for students who are involved, because all of a sudden they see some practical use for that math that was theoretical in the classroom. You heard Mayor Todd talk about quality. In your experience in these 16 sites, is there any reduction in the quality of educational opportunity for the young people who are involved? Mr. Pauly. To the contrary, Senator, the people in these pioneer- ing programs were very excited about them and were putting in extra energy and were really improving the quality of education that young people got. For example, we found that the students were taking more math and science courses than were required for graduation and certainly more than their peers were taking, be- cause they were so excited about the program's possibilities. That was true at the same time that a substantial fraction of disadvan- taged and low achieving kids were part of the program. So we real- ly see no reason to expect a fall off in quality because programs are trying to link up with the occupational relationship. Senator Simon. Mayor Todd, you heard Mr. Pauly say we are going to have to recruit a great many businesses who are willing to cooperate, as well as labor unions cooperating. Do you think the mayors of the country are willing to participate? I know you are, but do you think mayors are willing to provide some leadership in recruiting on this? Mayor Todd. I think they are not only willing, but eager to pro- vide that leadership. There is a certain level of competitiveness among mayors and appropriately so. And I suspect you are going to find a large number of mayors who are going to be scrambling to be on the forefront of developing innovative programs that can 52 be used. The programs will differ, I think, from community to com- munity based on their industry base and what their approach is, with some core ingredient steps being taken. I would emphasize one thing not directly to your question, Sen- ator, but in today's society for youth, we have high impact tele- vision. We have high impact MTV. We have high impact sports. And we have low impact education, simply because it is taught in much the traditional ways. And I believe, as Ed said, the linkage and the chance for hope and opportunity of these students, understanding there is some practical application for what they are doing in grade 9 in taking history or taking math to what they are going to be doing when they reach their parent's age, is a tremendous motivator and it ex- plains largely why the grades are up in what might be thought of unrelated classes necessarily to the main training effort. And I believe mayors are going to be highly challenged by the ability to go to the public and say: by implementing this kind of program, we have raised the test scores; we have lowered the un- employment rate; and given greater opportunity to the constituency that are going to be the public of tomorrow. I think they are going to be excited about it, enthusiastic in supporting the legislation. Senator Simon. I thank you. I have not heard the phrase high impact education before, but I like it. Yesterday in this room at this hour we held a hearing on NAFTA and there was division in the committee and among the witnesses on that question. But one thing I think everyone is in agreement on, whether NAFTA passes or not, is that those who are not prepared in terms of education in the future, that their quality of life is going to continue to go down. What we have to do is to see that people are prepared. Mayor Todd. Senator, if the high impact education is likable to you, consider that a gift to you today, and we appreciate the oppor- tunity to support your legislation. Senator Simon. Thank you, Mayor. Senator Durenberger? Senator Durenberger. Mr. Chairman, thanks and thank you for your questions. Mr. Pauly said we ought to begin at the 9th and 10th grade and I could not agree more. In fact, I think I have al- ready drafted amendment to try to do that. I do not how you decide between 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, but I would settle for 9th and I think that is of critical importance. That is a Minnesota recommendation too. Do you agree, Mayor Todd? Do you think that is a good idea? Mayor Todd. Absolutely. I think that Ed is capturing the mo- ment which these students are starting to think about what they are going to do when thev are their parent's age. And the ability to capture them at the 9th grade, we are finding out that many of the students that drop out, drop out in the 9th grade or right after that, because it is the transition year from middle school or junior high to high school. It is new. It is different. It is tough in many cases. They are oftentimes being combined with high-achieving stu- dents from other schools and having to compete. They drop out. The ability to capture them in a job-related training program at that time and give them motivation at the 9th grade, because at the 11th grade, a great deal of them will not be around to appre- ciate it. They will be dropped out and they will be dropping in the 53 criminal justice system. And that is something this program can have a dramatic effect on. Senator Durenberger. I was thinking in addition to the amend- ment here to also do something on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would, make it clear that this ought to be a pri- ority throughout the child's education, so that in one way or an- other we are not just focusing this as a 9th grade phenomenon or after you are 13 years of age phenomenon or something like that. It is an important priority, as we know from so many other private, public sector programs that are in the community now to try to help young people understand the community is a place to learn from, not mst tne classroom. And part of that is thinking of edu- cation in the context of everything else they do with their lives. I have two other questions. One is the small business issue, and maybe either one or both of you could answer the question, why should a small business want to get involved in a program like this? The second one relates to problems we have, in particularly, in Minnesota on apprenticeship. Who is in charge of the appren- ticeship issues, and is it possible to sort of zero in on the governor as the active agency in a State or something like that? But how do we get ourselves around the interagency, inter-organizational squabbles on who is responsible for apprenticeship? Mr. Pauly. The first question, Senator, was? Senator Durenberger. On small business, why should small businesses be involved. Mr. Pauly. We found a large degree of participation by small business and the program operators were often very creative in marketing their programs of small business for reasons such as take a look at your Future employees and find out who you would be interested in hiring in the future. Many small businesses, of course, are strongly involved in their communities and want to see the quality of young people who are motivated to stay in those com- munities and work and have the skills to do so improve. Let me add that we found relatively few employers that were willing to provide work place learning opportunities for more than three students and that was true even of large employers. Now I hope that the reason for that is that these programs are at a very early stage and with the national system that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act aims to produce that that situation will change. But at this point it will take a very, very large number of em- ployers, if each employer only provides one or two or three work place learning opportunities for students. That is, I think, the rea- son that it is critical to involve industry wide and to involve by labor, as well in recruiting large numbers of employers to work with the schools in these programs. Mayor Todd. Senator, you can guess my position perhaps on the second question. If reinventing government and all those kinds of new age governmental phrases have merit, it is local responsibility and local accountability. There is no way that I as Mayor can be fully accountable and responsible for a program unless I have a great deal of input in getting it designed in my community. What is appropriate for me in Austin, TX, is going to be different than what is appropriate for former Congressman and Mayor Steve Bartlett in Dallas and Mayor Lanier in Houston. And while cer- 54 tainly the States have to be involved and we appreciate their in- volvement, that local control is of extreme importance to mayors across the country not as a matter of turf— and I always under- stand that element is there— but as a matter of not only giving as the responsibility, but holding us accountable for the result that is produced. We believe in working with our local communities. We are able to do that. We know those business leaders on a first name basis, and our ability to recruit them in the program, to make sure that we can assure them it is not going to be gobbled up by any other level of government, is critical to making sure that we maximize the percentage that goes directly into the program and it is de- signed in such a way as to meet their needs. Ultimately, however good a training program we have in concept, if it does not meet the needs of the employers, those kids will not get hired. And that is a formula for failure. So it is critical that we work with the local communities and have the mayor and the local community, not just the mayor, but the local community involved in that process. Senator Durenberger. The obvious problem, our youth appren- ticeship program got delayed quite a bit by the apprenticeship squabble and unions rightfully take a great deal of pride from the fact that they brought us health care in the employment sector and they brought us a whole lot of other things, and one of them is a skilled worker that you can rely on because of their apprenticeship programs. So I think there is a — at least this is just Minnesota's experience, there is a sensitivity on the part of a lot of unions, particularly in the building trades that I have sensed at where they have really done so well at apprenticeship programs that sort of ceding any in- volvement with the apprenticeship to somebody, particularly some- body in the Government, is sort of like giving up a demonstrated value that they add to workers and particularly handing it over to some politician or some designee of a politician gets to be a difficult issue for them. And maybe this has been resolved somewhere else in the country to somebody's satisfaction. I do not know, maybe we can ask some other witnesses later in the program. But I like what you said in terms of accountability. I mean, hold me responsible is what I hear you saying. And you cannot hold me responsible if you dilute the authority all around the place. Who is going to be able to hold you responsible? Mayor Todd. There is always an element of turf within local community also. I do not want to deny that. But I will tell you that if I want a program to be successful, the last thing in the world I am going to do is call the press to my office and stand behind my desk and have a solo press conference endorsing a project. I am going to be standing behind my desk with about 30 other commu- nity representatives from business, from labor, from education, and we have to — in States that have local school boards — understand the critical nature of involvement of the school boards and the aca- demic community. But I will be joined with all of those people to make sure that the turf issue does not become something that defeats the program. It is far too important to let that happen and to get involved at a 55 gubernatorial level. And I love our governor and she lives in our city and is our dear friend. But I think she would agree that as she was successful in her prior job as county commissioner in deal- ing with local issues, we will be successful in dealing with our local issues and she will help us with that in any way, not to interfere with our process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Simon. Senator Bingaman? Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Pauly. On this issue of creating incentives for businesses to partici- pate, my impression is that we have done just the opposite in re- cent decades, in that we have made it more and more difficult or complex or cumbersome for employers, whether large or small, to hire high school students to do anything. I can remember — of course this was a different time and a different place — but when I was growing up in a small town in New Mexico, it was very com- mon for high school students to have after school jobs or jobs on the weekend, or at Christmas you would go help and wrap pack- ages, and of course you had summers jobs and all the local busi- nesses participate in that in a very unorganized way. It just was one of those things they did. Child labor laws and all the other impositions that we have put on there, it seems to me, make employers less willing to do that with young people. Am I right about that or wrong? Mr. Pauly. Senator, in some of the programs there were big com- plications created by State regulations and Federal regulations that make it difficult for young people to work around heavy equip- ment or create other barriers. However, while it is onerous for a single employer, especially a small business person, to figure out a creative response to those kinds of issues, when there is an em- ployer and labor related intermediary group, a local industry asso- ciation or a chamber, there is often a staff person there who can make the calls to the State Employment Agency or to other people to find out what specifically the regulations forbid and what they permit and to find out what other employers have done to enable students to work in these kinds of programs. So I think there are, and in fact, in the programs that we have looked at, there always were solutions to those issues. What was needed was somebody with the time and energy and expertise to track down the right solution. Senator Bingaman. I think that is right. I am just thinking in terms of a small employer, a 15-year old walks in off the street and says I would like a job. Is there any chance of working here after school or on Saturdays or something? And the employers likely re- sponse would be, I have got enough problems without hiring 15 year olds. That will bring down the wrath of the local government, Federal Government. I am going to have to file forms. I am going to have people looking over my shoulder. It strikes me that maybe some part of what we ought to be trying to do is to ensure — clearly you want to have child safety laws, child labor laws and all, but you still need to facilitate that circumstance where an employer wants to hire a high school kid to help out on Saturdays. So I do not know how we get that, but I would be interested in any addi- tional thoughts you would have? 56 Mr. Pauly. We found that the employer associations have the knowledge about how to work with those situations, of how to in- volve young people. But for individual employers, you are right, it can be often an insuperable barrier. So finding ways to facilitate the involvement of employer associations may be, at least the first aggressive step needed to let these programs occur. oenator Bingaman. The other questions I would have is about the extent to which public entities are actually participating in these programs. It is one thing for us to sit here and talk about how we have got to incentivize the private sector to our high school kids. How many of our cities and counties and governmental insti- tutions at all levels have consistent programs to involve high school kids in some kind of work context. Mr. Mayor, maybe you would have a thought on that or either one of you? Mayor Todd. I would respond that we as local governments are not as involved as we should be in the past and need very much to be involved. You know, many of our issues, particularly when we are governed with civil service laws pertaining to the hiring of po- lice and fire, as many cities are, who have to hire strictly on test scores, do not have the ability to give preference to the protected classes that we would otherwise do. What we have decided in Austin is to bring students in as part of a trainee program where they can be given on-the-job training in those occupations and others throughout our city government, and when tests are involved that can include studying for the test at the same time, so they will be better trained to be successful when that testing time comes around when they are age 18, I think is an important ingredient. Quality of worker is as important to Government or ought to be as important to Government as it is for the private sector, and our ability to produce quality employees to run our electric department, to be a fire person, to be on the force of the police department, or to go into administrative or clerical or management skills. They do not require a high school education is important to us and we need to be more involved. In Austin, we are developing our three-prong approach initially around the health care industry, which while not a large industry, is one that there is a great deaf of direct applicability going directly from high school into that field as techs or whatever; the nigh tech community which obviously we have a great deal of; and Govern- ment which is the mainstay of our economy. And those three to- gether, I think, can make a strong team, but Government must be a part of it. Senator Bingaman. Do you have any thoughts on that? Mr. Pauly. Senator Bingaman, there are already a group of high school career academies tnat focus on public service jobs around the country. One is here in the District of Columbia located at Ana- costia High School. The National Academy Foundation, a nonprofit, but it has been supported by the American Express. That Founda- tion is trying to develop more of those. By using the career acad- emy model, there are not following the youth apprenticeship ap- proach; thev are using a high school based approach that exposes young people to a range of the issues and substantive, kinds of sub- 57 stantive knowledge that are relevant to public service employment, and then links up with local public service employers to provide students with on-the-job experience. So that is beginning to happen around the country. Senator BlNGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Simon. Thank you. I might just add that particularly in rural areas the involvement of a local hospital or local governments where industrial opportunities may not be that great, can be very key. Senator Simon. We are pleased to be joined by the ranking mem- ber of the full committee, Senator Kassebaum. Senator Kassebaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for coming in late. I really do not have any questions, but seeing the Mayor of Austin, TX, perhaps I could just ask a question about — and maybe it has been covered — financing. As you know, it starts out with assistance from the Federal Government, but as- sumes that State will kick in the financing. Am I not correct on that? Senator Simon. We will pay part of it, but we ask State and local governments to Senator Kassebaum. Because in looking at this in Kansas, where we have had some major State financing legislation in trying to ad- dress inequities in school financing, and Texas has gone through similar difficulties, is this not going to pose a problem? Oregon which initiated a plan, I think it costs about $20 million. I know for us in Kansas at this point to start to assume some of those costs, I think, is questionable and I did not know from the stand- point of what you have gone through with some — and I think every State is facing some of these financing difficulties. Mayor Todd. Clearly, the cost of this program is going to be an issue that we will need to and are dealing with. It is perhaps tried to say that the cost of not dealing with it is far greater, of course. So we believe that the investment cost that we are anticipating through this program is a far better investment and far less costly than the cost of dropouts, the cost of criminal justice system. And we have a multibillion dollar program on the State ballot in the first Tuesday in November to build yet more jails, to hire the drop- outs primarily who are not able to hold a job. But we do believe, and I may be committing some amount of her- esy among the mayors in saying this, but we do believe that if we expect local control, finding local funding sources, not for all of the programs, but for a substantial part of the program, is going to be important. We believe that cannot necessarily come out of govern- ment coffers entirely and that the involvement both in participa- tion and in financing of the private sector and users of these pro- grams is of great importance. In developing our program, we have someone from Motorola heading our committee. The cost that they are involved in in sim- ply training applicants to hold their basic job is tremendous. They tell us that they believe in a relatively short period of time, cer- tainly within 5 years and 10, that the ability to translate their re- medial cost into direct cost, starting with kids in the 9th grade to make them qualified for those positions is tremendous. 58 Our greatest challenge, quite frankly, is having enough employ- ees to meet the high tech community in our city. So I believe the cost can be supported locally. I think that the Federal involvement is critical and is appropriate. State involvement is also appropriate as a tier of that. But local funding and industry-based funding is going to be important also. We can expect them to contribute and to participate when we show them the result. They can be assured of a future result when they have involvement in the development of the program. That is what we intend to do. I think any mayor who wants this to be successful in their community will do that. Senator Kassebaum. Thank you very much. Senator Simon. We thank both of you very much for your testi- mony. Our next panel includes Bill Kolberg, the Co-Chair of the busi- ness Coalition on Workforce Development and also the President of the National Alliance of Business; Rudy Oswald, the Director of the Department of Economic Research of the AFL-CIO; Paul Cole, Member of the Task Force on School-to-Work Transition of the American Federation of Teachers; and Thomas Musser, TRI-M Cor- poration, Kennett Square, PA. We are very pleased to have all of you here, and two of you, Bill Kolberg and Rudy Oswald are old hands at testifying before this committee and we particularly wel- come you. Bill Kolberg, we will start with your testimony here? STATEMENTS OF BILL KOLBERG, CO-CHAIR, BUSINESS COALI- TION ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC; RUDY OSWALD, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC RE- SEARCH, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC; PAUL COLE, MEMBER, TASK FORCE ON SCHOOL-TO- WORK TRANSITION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ALBANY, NY; AND THOMAS MUSSER, TRIM CORPORATION, KENNETT SQUARE, PA Mr. Kolberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you. As an old hand, I am pleased to be here again to appear before you and this subcommit- tee. As you mentioned, I am the President of the National Alliance of Business and I am first here on behalf of that organization. We endorse strongly this bill. We look forward to working with you and the full committee and the other body in getting it passed hopefully this fall. Also, Mr. Chairman, I chair an informal group of 15 national business organizations. We have come together and call ourselves the Business Coalition for Workforce Development. But today I cannot report that each one of us officially endorses this bill. We are working on it. My sense is that most, if not all of us, will ulti- mately endorse the bill and work as hard as the National Alliance of Business is. My sense is there is strong support in the business community for this kind of a bill. We in the National Alliance of Business have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, been involved for a quarter of a century on these kinds of things. We have been very much in- volved in model school -to-work activities. We are now working with Sears Roebuck specifically on appliance repair with the apprentice- 59 ship program and have had a lot of involvement with Motorola and many of our other members. In that process we have gathered a lot of insights. We have con- cluded, Mr. Chairman, that building a school-to-work system in this country is essential and we therefore recently created the busi- ness center for youth apprenticeship within our organization to link employers who are already involved in school-to- work models and able to share information with others. Over the next several years, we will work to build a substantial network nationally of participating employers. As a part of this ef- fort, Mr. Chairman, I think we made available to you and the com- mittee an insert that we recently placed in Fortune Magazine which is all on youth apprenticeship. It is sponsored by MCI, TRW, BMW, the States of Maine and Pennsylvania. And in this insert, we try to explain and motivate to employers why this makes sense, why we think this is essential for this Nation to proceed ahead in building a national network of what we call, youth apprenticeship. Mr. Chairman, the approach proposed in this bill of building a school-to-work system is, we think, quite different from approaches we have talked about in the past. What makes this proposal unique is the emphasis on building a work base component of structured learning into every single model that is supported by this bill. We believe strongly, as previous witnesses have said, that a successful school-to-work system must have the involvement of employers. This is a partnership between schools and employers. For too long we have left it to the schools. It is now essential that that partner- ship be put together and that you have a seamless avenue system so that young people can move from the classroom, school instruc- tion into the work based instruction. I believe there are two essential elements to build a very large employer base system around youth apprenticeship. First, you have already heard from previous witnesses about the need for an intermediary organization at the local level. That intermediary or- ganization in Tulsa is the Chamber of Commerce. In Boston, it is the Private Industry Council. In Ithaca, NY, it is Cornell Univer- sity. In Maine, it is the System of Technical Colleges. I go through that to illustrate it does not have to be a particular organization. The community ought to pick. But the intermediary organization needs to be able to link the schools and the employers and build the system and service the system. It needs to be the kind of an organization that is understood and trusted by the part- ners at the local level. That is point number one. Every community must have a very effective intermediary organization to build this program to scale. No. 2, most of the employers will be medium size and small for obvious reasons. As you heard again this morning, three, four, five apprentices, maybe even fewer in many employers. Building an in- frastructure in a small employer's work place to service an appren- tice takes some money, takes some up-front money. The money can be supplied really in two ways. For instance, the training of men- tors in the community could be carried out by the intermediary or- ganization. That is what is happening in Maine. The technical col- leges are doing that. 60 I think the committee knows the admin stration proposed that the targeted jobs tax credit be expanded to include apprentices which the administration said would be about 40 percent of the first $3,000 in wages or $1,200. In other words, using the tax sys- tem as a way of providing a small tax benefit to small employers who would engage in this kind of work. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is simple. In Germany and other countries, essentially what you have are employers carrying out educational responsibilities. That is what we are asking here. Yes, they get a good employee, but they are also finishing the education of those young people that are not going on to college. And in that context, they are providing a social benefit as well as a benefit to their company and to us. Therefore, there is a perfect rationale for subsidizing employers in carrying out this absolutely crucial func- tion. With that, Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying again that we are at the very beginning of building a system. I think this country would be happy to see 50 to 100,000 young people involved in this kind of thing over the next 4 years. I think we need to be humble. This will build very slow. It is going to be a very hard sell for employers. This is different than what they have done over the years, most of them. Current registered apprentices are 300,000. We are talking about 20 to 30 million young people every year that do not go on to college or do not complete a 4-year college degree. So we are talking, if we are serious, about building a large sys- tem in this country ala other countries. It will take us a long time. We need to be humble. We need to start carefully and slow, but we certainly need to make a very important start now. Thank you very much. Senator Simon. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kolberg may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Rudy Oswald? Mr. Oswald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the op- f>ortunity to present the views of the AFL-CIO on this important egislation, on your leadership in this area, and also the cosponsor- ship that you nave brought to this important piece of legislation. Last May the AFL-CIO Executive Council looked at the question of school-to-work transition and adopted a sort of guidelines on both skill training and school-to-work, and if I may, I would like to make those guidelines a part of the record. Senator Simon. They will be entered in the record. Mr. Oswald. The problems that you have already heard deal with the needs of students, not only to get understanding of skills, but also to get the essential elements of what school is to provide in terms of adequate reading, writing and math skills and Paul Cole, from the teachers, will emphasize more of the needs of the education system in that regard. But I think that this legislation will benefit all students, not only those who go on to college, but I think it has the most promise for our Nation s vocational education of students. It does break down the walls which too frequently divide academic from vocational education and I think that is a goal that is shared with the Perkins Act of 1990. It provides that vocational education of students will 61 continue to receive a quality education rather than a separate, but unequal preparation, as many do today. The importance that I think your legislation places on a high school diploma, on high standards, and as appropriate, a post- secondary credential or certificate, snowing that a skilled level has been achieved are important elements for achieving broad skill op- portunities. I would like to pick up a little bit on what my friend Bill Kolberg talked about in terms of partnerships. And I think your legislation, particularly in its early definition, talks about a partnership of gov- ernment, business and labor with secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. I think while Bill emphasized the business partnership and talked about Germany as an important element, in Germany it is a tripartite partnership. It is the trade union movement with the schools, with the business. And I think what unions bring is an involvement in broad training of workers where- as employers often concentrate too often in training only for this job, not for a broad career. And secondary, your bill highly emphasizes the role of mentoring, and that is done by workers on the job, not employers, as such. And I think to that extent, that full partnership is an im- portant element. The second element that we would like to empha- size is the guidelines that you have in the legislation that govern program activities in natural work places. Many of our unions al- ready are engaged in registered apprenticeship programs where you learn by doing. We have had the experience of other joint train- ing programs with employers in many places and happy to see that the emphasizes is on broad transferable job activities. I think your legislation is also right on target when it sets forth that students are paid for the work that they do, and that funds not be expended to pay for student wages. There are, of course, the protections that we find also helpful in the law to make sure that they are governed by Workers' Compensation, OSHA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the other items. I am sorry that Senator Bingaman is no longer here. The child labor laws that he worked under were passed in 1938 and I think that he was already working under those laws when he was in school. We are also pleased that there are a number of elements relating to the work place. There are a couple of specific recommendations that I have in terms of the legislation. One deals with the elements of the State partnership program where there is a discussion of a partnership involving employers in section 202(b)(3)m and then it talks about a large group of other people. I think in your early section on defi- nitions of partnership, it talks about really a tripartite partnership and I think if that were incorporated here, that would do it better. The second aspect concerns the educational objectives of the bill and we would hope that that be strengthened t>y some language that would require, instead of the current language that has broad instruction and a variety of elements of an industry, that it be all aspects of an industry. We think that that would assure that work- ers would learn all skills and our experience is that there is a slight difference in the language which would encourage that broad element. 77-136 0-94-3 62 Also, third, that there be a requirement that as other legislation has had in past, that would require that work place learning com- ponent comply with the written personnel policies and collective bargaining agreements where applicable. I think witn those slight adjustments, that would strengthen the bill and it is important legislation that be passed to help children attain a skill and have employment when they finish their edu- cation. Thank you. Senator Simon. Thank you very much and we will consider all three of those recommendations. [The prepared statement of Mr. Oswald and guidelines may be found in the appendix.] Senator Simon. Paul Cole? Mr. Cole. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to present testimony this morning on behalf of the 830,000 members of the American Federation of Teachers and con- gratulate you and the committee for its leadership on this impor- tant issue and the fact that it has received strong bipartisan sup- port is something that we are very much encouraged by. I serve also as a vice president to the American Federation of Teachers and as the secretary-treasurer of the New York State AFL-CIO and served on a number of national and State commis- sions on this issue, including the SCAN commission and a number of New York State commissions and have had long interest in this and appreciate the opportunity to come here this morning to share some of our thoughts. I have submitted formal testimony, however, I will make a few brief comments to highlight the main Senator Simon. Your formal testimony will be entered in the record. Mr. Cole. Thank you. First, there is no question that there is a revolution underway and the nature of work in the work place that requires new and very different skills from workers at all levels and especially increasingly so front line workers. Workers are in- creasingly being asked to use their brains as well as their brawn and to work on teams, to solve problems, to use increasingly com- plex technology, to be more flexible and certainly to learn how to learn. And while there are still too few employers who are reor- ganizing the work place to require higher skills, the trend is clearly accelerating and the development of a highly skilled work force is absolutely essential if employers and enterprises are to follow a high wage, high skill strategy. While we must upgrade tne skills of our existing workers, it is also imperative that we create a system that will prepare today's students for the work place of tomorrow. The school-to-work legis- lation goes a long way to help create that system and improve the transition from school-to-work and to meaningful careers. The focus on preparing young people for a high skill, high wage career is central to the success of this legislation and the AFT applauds that goal. The key to success really lies in the incorporation of high stand- ards for all youth and that includes academic standards, employ- ability standards or the SCANS, the SCAN like skills, and of course occupational standards. A success in the high skill work place requires high standards in all three of those categories for all 63 workers. We strongly support S. 1361 provisions that tie the school- to-work program to the national goals adopted by each State and to meaningful assessments as part of that effort. These high standards must be required in both the school-based and the work-based learning components of the initiative. And they must be integrated and expected of all students if they are to be prepared for a truly high skill work place. Great care must be taken to give priority in selecting employers who have or who are moving to create hign skill work places and who with their unions and workers work with teachers and other school personnel to in- corporated the high standards in both settings. A placement must also reflect local labor market needs and not place young people in low skill and dead-end jobs and occupations for which there is little future or where there, in many communities, is already an over supply because of unemployment problems. Also, by the way, a number of existing job opportunities that young people currently have could be restructured to provide a rich and rewarding learning environment if employers and educators would cooperate on doing that. Many that are in the retail industry and fast food industries, if we rethink that work environment, I would argue, it could become one that is very rich. As they cur- rently exist, I do not think they meet the standards. A true system will only be created if all relevant stake holders are required to be involved from the very beginning of the process, and I would echo Rudy Oswald's point in terms of organized labor on that. It includes employers, of course, but also unions and teach- ers who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the pro- gram. And if we have learned anything for earlier reform move- ments, it is that massive in-service training for teachers must be made available, as it also must for work place personnel, for coun- selors and others responsible for creating and implementing the system. The AFT also believes that connecting activities are central to the success of this program, as they are outlined in the legislation. It is important that those ultimately accountable for delivering pro- frams be responsible in the short term for these activities and that y the third year, schools and work places as full partners have this responsibility. The AFT applauds the legislation's attention to direct funding of local districts who are leaders and of special attention to high pri- ority and high poverty districts. The districts should be of all sizes and throughout the Nation. The AFT also joins the AFL-CIO in calling for incorporation of safeguards that protect both existing workers and protect the rights of working students without limit- ing their opportunity to participate, and I think we can work that out. Mr. Chairman, the AFT believes that this is a fundamentally sound legislation. We are not only supportive of it, we are widely enthusiastic about this piece of legislation. And with the rec- ommendations that we offer to strengthen it, we think it will make a real difference and help to create a true school-to-work transition system and not simply a plethora of programs that currently exist that will serve American students and America's employers alike, and we stand ready to assist in its passage in any way that we can. 64 Thank you very much. Senator Simon. We thank you. I regret that we have a vote on on the floor right now. We will take a 10-minute recess and then hear from you, Mr. Musser. TRecess.] [The prepared statement of Mr. Cole may be found in the appen- Senator Simon. The subcommittee hearing will resume. Our apologies to the witnesses who have been through this experience before. Some of you have anyway. We are pleased to be joined by Senator Harkin of Iowa who has been very active in this whole field of education and pleased to have you join us here, Senator Harkin. Senator Harkin. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I apologize, I was not here earlier. Senator Simon. It will be entered in the record. We finished three members of the panel. We did not finish three members of the panel, but we heard from three members of the panel and we are now about to hear from Mr. Musser. Mr. Musser. Thank vou very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for this opportunity of being with you this morning and expressing my views on Senate bill No. 1361. My name is Tom Musser and I am chief executive officer of TRI-M Corporation which is located in southeast Pennsylvania, Kennett Square area. We employ about 250 people and we generate revenues of $25 million a year in that range. I might add that I am also a member of NFIB, although I am not testifying for them because, as you know, they are driven by the mandate and there has been no mandate on this bill, so at this particular time, they do not have a position. So I am offering my views from a personal nature. In February of 1990, and I think this is probably why I am here, our company formed a business educational partnership with our local school district, namely, the Kennett consolidated school dis- trict in our area. Our company supports that today to the tune of about $40,000 a year that we personally put in from the company to support this partnership. The mission which I will go over very quickly, is to encourage and foster communication, cooperation and positive sharing of resources between the Kennett consolidated school district and TRI-M Corporation in order to provide a train- ing program that will give students entry level skills for the elec- trical trades, because that is our business and we address the elec- trical business in the industrial and heavy commercial sectors. Up to this date, we are in our fourth successful year of this pro- gram and we have had 31 graduates, and it is in the record on where those graduates are right now. And we feel over the years that this educational partnership has been very beneficial, not only to us but to the school district and the community, and most impor- tantly to the students who have taken part and have graduated in this program. It is from that benchmark of having experienced that I am here this morning and offer a statement on Senate bill 1361. No. 1, I believe the concept of this bill is well founded. We certainly do need more. While the economic situation has dampened the growth of the construction industry recently, certainly in the northeast where 65 I am from, we still have a shortage of highly skilled electrical tradespersons in our area. And while that shortage exist, we do also have young people who are out there looking for iobs, but un- fortunately do not have the basic skills they need to be successful in our trade or any other aspect of the business sector where they require extensive training. So if this bill, in fact, addresses that successfully, I would cer- tainly support this bill and I think it is a step in the right direc- tion. However, in fact this shortage that I speak of is really why we got into this partnership in the beginning. We were having dif- ficulty finding the number of people needed back when the econ- omy was booming and were turning down work. In fact, in 1988 turned down some $2 million wortn of noncompetitive work be- cause we could not field the proper work force. We see this as a potential pool of long-range plan and pool that we can hire from over the years, and that really was our motivation for getting into it, plus the fact our concern about the young people who are not getting jobs. . I do have two concerns, I guess, one caution and maybe a com- ment directly on the bill. The concern as I see it, that I do not be- lieve is mentioned here this morning, is that the bill does State that it should be integrated with the Goals 2000 program which I believe that Senate 846 which is still under consideration at some point in the legislature here now. That particular legislation says that there willl>e a national board that will develop skills with re- spect to any occupation or trade for which recognized or apprentice- snip standards have been jointly developed by labor or representa- tive were being accurately used for training purposes. I believe, and I am a lay person here — this is my first time testi- fying—if I understand this bill, it might prohibit, since we already have in all the construction trades, very bona fide apprenticeship training programs in the union sector and in the nonunion sector, that this might prohibit the program like mine which is construc- tion oriented from being able to participate in this type of funding, if and when this does become law. So I would be concerned that the construction industry which I represent would not be left out of that process, if in fact, that is the way it does come down. I would caution that. I think all of our young people, especially minorities and women who are trying to get into the trade, should have an opportunity to avail themselves of Federal funding, if in fact, it does become available. I am also concerned on that national standard's board of the makeup of the board. As I understand it now, it is one-third — about 8 people from business, 8 people from organized labor, and 8 people or so from other human resources and other parts of the educational community and that type of thing. I would only suggest that on the labor side, I think that approxi- mately 80 percent of the private sector work force is nonsignatory right now. I would ask that you would consider to at least have those folks represented in this labor section of the bill. Certainly organized labor should be there and I would applaud their partici- pation. But I would also suggest that we look at this other 80 per- cent out here of small businesses like myself who are signatory to any labor agreement. 66 The caution I would share with you is that there is a targeted impetus of the bill toward low achieving and at risk students, and I commend you for that. I think that is absolutely where the target should be. I would just caution that we do not water down the pro- gram in any way or shape or form to a level to where those type of students would go through and then when they are finished not be able to get a meaningful and job with a decent future in it. My last comment is that in my view I think you would get the private sector's attention and very active participation if you of- fered some kind of a tax credit to offset the school work programs in lieu of the grant money proposed in this bill. I think the grant monev is great, but it has very high overhead cost and it will prob- ably be slow and difficult possibly to obtain. I think these factors will discourage participation from the private sector in general and certainly in the small business sector in particular. So with these concerns I conclude my comments and I thank you for this opportunity to be with you this morning. Senator Simon. We thank you. Where you mentioned it is your first time appearing here as a witness, we hope you survived the experience? Mr. Musser. I think I will. Thank you, Senator. [The prepared statement of Mr. Musser may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Let me just say the program is voluntary here, so there is no prohibition to what you were doing. You mentioned that you lost $2 million in business because you did not have the work force. One of the witnesses who was before the Committee yesterday— Senator Harkin was here — told about a business, I be- lieve it was in Connecticut, that had to make a choice of going to Mexico, the United States or Germany. Now, Germany's average wage believe it or not, is about 60 percent higher than in the Unit- ed States. The business, however, made a decision to locate their plant in Germany because of the preparation of the workers. And what really underscores is the need to prepare our people better. Mr. Musser. Absolutely. Senator Simon. We simply have to do that. Mr. Musser men- tioned something Senator Bingaman mentioned earlier; Bill Kolberg and Rudy Oswald — Rudy Oswald who is also an economist, in addition to everything else — I would be interested in the reac- tion the two of you nave to Mr. Musser's suggestion. Mr. Oswald. On the tax credit? Senator Simon. On some kind of a tax credit or tax incentive for employers, because I do believe one of the problems is going to be to get enough employers to participate. Mr. Oswald. I think that rather than a tax credit one might look at what the French do which is a requirement of employers to set aside a certain amount of funds for training which if they do not spend for training is a levy of a new tax, rather than a tax credit. I am worried as we struggle with the budget deficit and I know that has been a major interest of yours, Senator, that establishing new tax credits at this point may not be the answer. You indicated very clearly that training is an important element and the Germans obviously do it, and do also have a requirement of providing training and do not have, to the best of my knowledge, 67 a tax credit for doing it. I think that the answer is much more a requirement of training. If one finds that the voluntary approach that you have in this current bill does not succeed, rather than the movement of a tax credit, some requirement rather than a credit approach. Senator Simon. Bill Kolberg? Mr. Kolberg. It will not surprise you, Mr. Chairman, to hear me say that I disagree with my friend Rudy on this one. The adminstration, Secretary Reich, specifically worked very hard in the tax bill and the budget debate recently to get the targeted jobs tax credit amended to include the tax credit of $1,200 for each ap- prentice. Now for a variety of reasons that you gentlemen know far better than the rest of us, that did not emerge finally in the com- promise. . We believe strongly that something like that is a very sensible thing to do, particularly as Mr. Musser so correctly points out, for medium size and small employers that really do have important in- frastructure costs. Many of them do not have the $40,000 a year that Mr. Musser was kind enough to contribute to the work that he has been doing with his education authorities. Most businesses do not have that and they really are going to need some kind of incentives to begin. And I hope that you could find a way to do that. I understand the jurisdictional problems by committee, but I would hope that this committee would try to figure out a way to do that as this bill moves through the Congress. Senator Simon. Mr. Musser, you mentioned the $40,000. It was not real clear to me. Is this what you figure your program costs you or this is in addition to something else that you Mr. Musser. No, this is the hard cost of the program on an an- nual basis of cost to TRI-M Corporation. There are soft costs on top of that. Senator Simon. Let me ask you a question that you may or may not know the answer to. Has it paid off for your company? Mr. Musser. In direct return on investment not vet. But the rea- son that we are not discouraged at all because of that is because we are also emphasizing in this program that while this is a voca- tional program, we do encourage these young people to go on to a four or a two-year post high school program. And I guess we have been a little more successful in that persuasion than we thought we would because many of them are still in the pipeline, so to speak. We hope to get them as they come out the pipeline, either with 2 year associate degrees or possibly even a four-year degree. We have not gotten many back yet, but this is a long-term program and it is a short-term view of it right now. Senator Simon. My instinct says long-term, it will pay off for y°u- Mr. Musser. We certainly think so. That is why we are involved. I would also mention that since this has been a very successful pro- gram in our area, I have been approached by other schools to dupli- cate this. But obviously we are not financially strong enough to do $40,000 per school per year, on and on. So maybe something in your program, the bill that you are presenting might facilitate that type of expanding a program like this with some seed money. 68 Senator Simon. Paul Cole, have you talked to teachers who have been involved in this kind of program and what is their experience? Mr. Cole. Most of the programs so far, at least in the youth ap- prenticeship area, are small. There are a number of other programs like youth academies and a coop education programs that have been around for a long time. I think where the programs are of high quality, where there are high standards, where tney integrate academic and vocational education, where there is links with high quality work place learning experiences, and where they result from full and active participation from the beginning of partner- ships of teachers and employers and workers and there are unions where they are appropriate, where those dynamics are in place, a quality product emerges for young children. The teachers are ec- static about them, not just happy about them. Because what it also does is to drive reform in pedagogy. In other words, if you look at the skills that are required of prob- lem solving and team work and interacting with technology and all of the kind of skills that are characteristic of a high performance work place and you look at what the traditional classroom looks like historically, it prepares people for a tailoristic work environ- ment. Where teachers and schools have been able to restructure and reorganize their classrooms so you have high performance learning to prepare people for high performance work places, teach- ers and students alike get very enthused and very excited about that kind of environment. So this has the possibility, not only at preparing young people for high skilled work, but it also has, I would argue, a major incentive to promote and speed along the restructuring of elementary and secondary education. Senator Simon. Senator Harkin? Senator Harkin. I really have no questions other than to thank the panel for taking their time to be here and to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your sponsorship of this legislation and seeing to it that we are moving it along. It is clear from what I have been just listening to you gentlemen say that I think there is a real partnership here that we can engage in, which is just a win win situation for everyone. Exactly how it is going to be structured and shaped, I do not really know, but I do know that Senator Simon is on the right track with this. That we have got to have programs, something like we have seen in other countries where we really hone a young per- son's skill in certain areas, where they can look forward to at least decent employment and decent job opportunities. It helps them, but it also helps businesses too. So again, it is something that I do not know that businesses can afford to do on their own, because many of these entry level jobs are in small businesses. They cannot afford to foot the bill them- selves, but I think it is in our national interest to do so. All I need now is for Senator Simon to help me come up with the money in our appropriations bill for this and we will be all right. But I thank you for being here. Senator Simon. Thank you. I know the chairman of the sub- committee that deals with this. [Laughter.] We thank all of you very, very much for your testimony. 69 Our next panel is composed of Kirsten Davidson of TransCen, Inc. of Rockville, MD; Dr. David Johnson, National Transition Net- work, University of Minnesota of Minneapolis; Paul Weckstein, Co- Director, Center for Law and Education; Donna Milgram, Director, Non traditional Employment Training Project of the Wider Opportu- nities for Women; and Richard Apling, Specialist in Social Legisla- tion, part of the Congressional Research Service. And Kirsten Davidson, I understand, is with her mother here, Carolyn Post, and we are happy to have you here too. Let me add Senator Mikulski, who is a very active and influential member of our committee, wanted to be here, but because of conflicting sched- ule is not able to be here, but wanted to particularly welcome Kirsten and her mother who are from Maryland. At this time I would like to insert a statement from Senator Mi- kulski. [The prepared statement of Senator Mikulski follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Mikulski Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the school to work initiative, I am very pleased that you are holding hearings on this important issue. I especially want to welcome Kirsten Davidson and her par- ents Mr. and Mrs. Davidson of Rockville, MD who will testify on the special needs of persons with disabilities. Mr. Chairman, we are in a war for America's future. Winning that war depends on whether America's children can have jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Jobs for the nineties and jobs for the 21st century. We must have a work force that is ready for a high tech future. This bill will help our students get ready to compete in a global marketplace by teaching them applicable job skills and at the same time giving them the opportunity to apply those skills in real work situations. To make any school to work program effective, there must be total commitment from industry and the cooperation of govern- ment, business, labor, educational institutions, and community or- ganizations. It's difficult to bring all those groups together, but this school-to-work bill starts to address that challenge. This legislation will provide grants to states to develop and im- plement statewide school-to-work programs. It also addresses each state's need by offering grants to states at different stages of the program development process. This is important because some states have already developed their programs and are ready to go while others are just beginning their operations. Thanks to the cooperative efforts of Maryland's local schools, community colleges, business, industry, and government, Maryland has developed its own school-to-work and youth apprenticeship ini- tiative. This initiative is helping Maryland's young people to suc- cessfully connect their school experience with employment and to make a smooth transition to the world of work. In fact, Maryland's team of school-to-work experts is working on six initiatives to help meet the needs of students and industry. Each initiative is based on a school-to-work framework, but each has a special focus. For example, one initiative may include school- 70 to-work and career development, or school-to-work and apprentice- ship, or student advocacy, or student mentoring. A stronger relationship between high school students and the work world will help our students to focus on their future. It will give them direction and help them to set realistic goals. This vision is important. Some students cannot see themselves going on to a 4-year college or university, but could see themselves becoming highly skilled technicians. Associate degree granting colleges or community colleges are in an especially unique position to help out not only because they work closely with local industry, but also be- cause they educate about half of our college bound students. I look forward to today's testimony on how we can strengthen the school-to-work models to ensure access and opportunities for all, in- cluding women, minorities, and the disabled. This bill is certainly an important step in developing the work force skills needed for our students to be competitive and prepared to meet today and tomorrow's work force needs. Thank you and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. Senator Simon. We will hear first from you, Kirsten, if that is all right? STATEMENTS OF KIRSTEN DAVIDSON, TRANS CEN, INC., ROCKVHXE, MD, ACCOMPANIED BY CAROLYN POST; DAVID JOHNSON, NATIONAL TRANSITION NETWORK, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, MN; PAUL WECKSTEIN, CO- DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR LAW AND EDUCATION, WASHING- TON, DC; DONNA MILGRAM, DHtECTOR, NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROJECT, WDDER OPPORTUNITffiS FOR WOMEN, WASHINGTON, DC; AND RICHARD APLING, SPE- CIALIST IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION, CONGRESSIONAL RE- SEARCH SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Post. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Carolyn Post, and I am pleased to be here with my daughter, Kirsten Davidson, to testify on the importance of including stu- dents with disabilities in the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. We have submitted testimony for the record and we will try and sum- marize our testimony. Kirsten has been blind and severely learning disabled since birth, but she has recently successfully transitioned from school to the world of work. This has been a result of collaborative planning by Kirsten, our family, the school, agencies and her employer. Kirsten will now tell you a little bit about herself and her job. Ms. Davidson. Good morning. My name is Kirsten Davidson and I graduated from Rock Terrace High School, Rockville, MD, and I am 22 and I work for the Federal Government. My agency is Consumer Product Safety Commission. My title is office aid and I take a letter opener, open the mail, staple it, do some hole punch- ing and I do some date stamping and sealing and I do some label- ing. And I like my job a lot. People are nice and I had that job be- fore I graduated and then I had a job coach and a vision teacher and they helped me with my job. By January, I did not have to have a job coach and vision teacher any more. I was able to do it 71 all by myself. And it is great. Now in January I was able to keep my job. I was so happy. And now I am able to get a paycheck. Senator Simon. That is great. We thank you for being here. I think your mother wants to add something here to that. Ms. Post. As an office aid in the Freedom of Information Divi- sion of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Kirsten has a real job in the community, in a demanding environment. And she is the only one in the office with a disability, but she is fully in- cluded in the office setting. Before the transition planning began, long before when she was in high school, she said she wanted to work in the community. This was what she wanted to do when she graduated. She wanted to have a job. She did not want to sit at home. And she did not want to go to a sheltered workshop. We supported that decision on her part and we were encouraged because we knew that some people with challenging disabilities were successfully employed in the community. We were also very apprehensive because we knew that there is a very percentage of people with disabilities who are unemployed once they graduate from the school system. , t Around the time Kirsten was 18, we worked with the transition coordinator in the school and an agency named TransCen who helps students with disabilities find employment in the community, and they were very careful to match her skills and her interests with the needs of the employer. And they found the job at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And as she stated, at first she had a job coach, but soon the office staff provided the necessary support. She no longer needed the job coach. Some accommodations were made for her with special equipment and these were designed and made by her job coach. And it was a real team effort from the very beginning. She is working today because of collaborative planning and edu- cational emphasis on employment preparation and a belief that de- spite her disabilities, she can be a contributing member of the work force. Without the opportunity, training and support, I am really convinced that she would have graduated with nothing to do or working in a restrictive and segregated setting, and we all know that that is very expensive, not only in terms of human potential, but tax dollars as well. Too often people with disabilities are written off because of an automatic assumption they cannot perform. Kirsten is living proof that this is not true. We would like every student to have the expe- riences necessary to make the same seamless transition that Kirsten has made. The legislation this committee is developing will help young peo- ple with and without disabilities achieve this goal. We are happy that Congress has recognized students with disabilities as a part of the larger student population as evidenced in the education re- form legislation. And we commend the subcommittee for following suit in including students with disabilities in this school-to-work transition legislation. t n It is only through a strong statement of intent that all "students does, indeed mean "all," that students with disabilities can be as- sured that they will not be excluded. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 72 Senator Simon. We thank you and, Kirsten, we thank you espe- cially. [Trie prepared statement of Carolyn Post and Kirsten Davidson may be found in the appendix.] Senator Simon. Dr. Johnson, I want to hear from you and then the other three witnesses. We will go a little out of order and ask a few questions of the three of you. I might mention, Kirsten, Sen- ator Harkin, who is here, he has been the leader in helping people with disabilities in our country. I have the honor of serving on the subcommittee that deals with this problem with him. But the champion is to my right, right here. You cannot see him, but let me tell you, he is just as proud of you as we all are, Kirsten. Dr. Johnson? Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today to speak on be- half of youth with disabilities concerning this School-to-Work Op- portunities Act. I currently operate in a variety of capacities in this world and supporting the transition of youth with disabilities from schools, to postsecondary education work and community living. At the University of Minnesota, I am currently the director of what is called the National Transition Network which is assisting State education and State vocational rehabilitation agencies in im- plementing new aspects of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- cation Act focusing on transition services. I am also, I would like to add, the chairman of a local school board in Minnesota and I also speak personally to this issue, as I am the primary guardian of a brother who has a severe developmental disability. Some of these issues I am going to speak to are rather firsthand in my own world. What I would like to do is just talk a little bit here. What I would like to do is dispense with reading any of these notes to you and just talk to you. Kirsten Davidson s situation is what I would call very unique. It speaks to two things. One is to Kirsten's individual potential for achieving what she has achieved. She has overcome some barriers, no doubt not only individual bar- riers, but barriers present within the system as a whole. Second, I think it also speaks to the potential that exists when professionals, in concert with employers and family members, speak to the needs of an individual as a transition from school to other activities in life. But I would like to say that this situation for Kirsten may not even be typical of situations across the United States at the current time. Let me tell you a few things about what we know about youths with disabilities following their completion of school. The largest, and we have conducted dozens and dozens of studies over the past decade. There is just very little by way of anything less than con- sistent information or data reported in all of these studies, includ- ing some of my own at the University of Minnesota. The largest and perhaps most important study though was conducted here. I was commissioned by the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education. It was conducted by Stanford Research Institutes in California on 8,000 students from 300 dif- ferent school districts. They fundamentally asked the question, what happens to students once they complete their public school programs? 73 Now there is a lot of data in that study, I assure you, as it has taken 6 years to unfold all of that information and will now con- clude in 1993 here. And I am sure there are, indeed, many prelimi- nary reports available to the committee. Three things — 36 percent of all youth with disabilities in the United States drop out. That is for any population across any particular situation, the single largest group represented in the student body that drops out. This includes persons who we have looked at in terms of drop-out statis- tics where economically disadvantaged represent any particular multicultural group. Senator Harkin. You are using the term drop out to mean drop out of education, out of school? Mr. Johnson. Individuals who are currently under publicly man- dated secondary education programs who are on individualized educational programs drop out. If you define it a little bit more and I do not want to spend too much time with it, 32 percent actually drop out and 4 percent are either incarcerated or expelled for a lot of reasons or placed into State operated facilities. The second statistic that is clearly important in relation to the Act is that few individuals with disabilities have participated in postsecondary vocational education programs. We know that an in- dividual's inability to partake of training after high school seriously jeopardizes their ability to earn high wages, to develop high skills necessary for where we are heading in the work place today. Fewer than 17 percent of youth with disabilities who exit our public schools, as long as 3 to 5 years following the time of school comple- tion, have accessed and participated in postsecondary education programs in the United States. Let me just clarify postsecondary vocational education programs in the United States. We have absolutely no data at the present how many individuals who accessed those programs have success- fully completed them. That is they have entered; taken their course of study; exited the program successfully; and entered employment. The third basic statistic here and one which preoccupies us con- stantly in this country is employability. We know, again looking at data 3 to 5 year out, that we have an unemployment rate of 43 per- cent among young people with disabilities in the country. Of those who are employed, we are very concerned for their inability to achieve high wages. And this is not due strictly to problems or limi- tations in their inability to develop high skills for high wages, but rather opportunity. And also participate in situations where their medical and health benefits are not necessarily picked up by em- ployers as well. A lot of what we have faced here in response to this has been due to in part some of our own difficulties, special education, in particular, to move collectively with the educational system. As we look as a nation at education reforms today, we will need to take a look at the position and placement of students with disabilities in those reforms. This Act along with Goals 2000 is certainly a very strong direction there, and all needs to mean all, as Kirsten and her mother indicated here. We are concerned and one of the misconceptions that has been present is that special education takes care of its own students. Therefore the mainstream, we may not need to be concerned about 74 it. In fact, the issue is is that without the capacity of special edu- cation to enter and access programs in the general education sys- tem such as those proposed here within this Act, that there is little by way of any opportunity to improve on the statistics that are cur- rently available and really show some very dismal findings. There is a good deal more we need to reflect on here. The written testimony itself presents to you four sets of issues concerning the Act. I am very enthralled with the possibility here to make this an inclusive piece of legislation that all will mean all. Failure to do so — we have had a lot of problems with the Carl Perkins Act. We have had problems with legislation because it has not been clear and emphatic enough that people with disabilities need to be part of that law. You have an opportunity. It is not by lack of Congressional intent, certainly that youth with disabilities and young adults with disabilities do not partici- pate, but rather that the language that is contained within the Federal legislation is not clear enough so as to provide the indis- putable direction to State and local administrative authorities when implementation occurs, when planning occurs, and when op- portunities for access are created for people with disabilities. I would like to thank you. I have some additional materials I would like to submit for the record concerning some brief policy summaries of some recent legislation we have undertaken, and thank you very much for this opportunity. Senator Simon. We thank you. If I may give an assignment to a university professor here. I would like you to take the bill along with you and if you can submit language that you think would make it more inclusive, we would like to have that and like to have it as soon as we could. Because I hope we can move this bill fairly quickly. Mr. Johnson. We have just submitted a very extensive review to Bob Silverstein and Senator Harkin's office regarding this matter. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. I know that Senator Harkin may not be able to stay, so I am going to yield at this time to Senator Harkin for ques- tions and then we will get back to our other three witnesses. Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, you are very kind to permit me to go out of order in this matter, and again I want to thank you for that, and compliment you for moving this bill. Our disability policy subcommittee does have Dr. Johnson's suggestions and your staff has been very good in working with my staff in pulling this together. And again, I thank you for your willingness to work to ensure that this very important piece of legislation is inclusive and does reach more of the Kirstens who are out there, that do not want to sit at home, but want to get out to work and can be a part of the work force, if they have the kind of job training that will equip them to do that. So Kirsten, again, I just want to echo what Senator Simon said, we are indeed very proud of you. You are, indeed a pioneer in many ways, breaking new ground. And again, I know that it has been a tough struggle and again, all the more reason why we are proud of you. Your mother told us that your job coach, Kirsten, made some special equipment that helped you do your job. One of 75 the things that we have heard about in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act was the supportive services and what it might cost to provide the kind of support that individuals need to do the Could you tell us what kind of equipment your job coach made and how it does help you do your job? I understand you may have some with you; is that right? I would be kind of interested in see- ing what that is. Ms. Davidson. This is a board where I take a letter and I told it and then I close it and then I have to kind of squeeze it and have to hold it and I fold it. Ms. Post. That is for folding letters, so that they are even and she can get them in an envelope. Senator Harkin. I see, you put it in and you put that down and it folds it? Ms. Post. Yes. Senator Harkin. I see. Ms. Post. Slide it in and turn this over and turn it over and take it out. Senator Harkin. And you do it again and it folds it again? Ms. Post. Yes. Senator Harkin. I see. Ms. Post. Here is one. Senator Harkin. That looks like a real expensive piece of equip- ment there. [Laughter.] Ms. Post. She said, oh no, it was not. Senator Harkin. That is exactly what I am saying. Ms. Post. Do you want to tell them what that is? Ms. Davidson. This is for the one where I take a folder. I put it in and then I take like a label and I put the label right in there [indicating]. Senator Harkin. I see. So you put the folder in and you know where the label goes. It has to fit in the folder. I got you. Ms. Post. The folder and large envelopes. Senator Harkin. Excellent. Who is your job coach? Ms. Davidson. I have one kind of person named Jim. Senator Harkin. Whoever did this is pretty smart. What is this? Ms. Davidson. This is what is for— I put a piece of paper and I do some hole punching and I push it down like that [indicating]. It makes the holes in it. Senator Harkin. Because it fits right into that form. That is pretty ingenious. Ms. Post. She also has this letter opener that was picked up at a credit union, given away at a credit union, and it has a little razor blade in it and it works very well. She can whip through mail very quickly and open all their mail. Senator Harkin. Again another example of good old common sense. You can do things that do not cost a lot of money, but they can assist someone to perform a job and do a job that is needed to be done. Ms. Post. Just with a little creativity and skill, it can be done. Senator Harkin. But through the ADA, a lot people say, all of these things are going to cost Tots of money to provide all this sup- port for people with disabilities, but in many cases a little ingenu- 76 ity goes a long way. It does not cost a heck of a lot of money. So again, that is pretty good. I hate to even ask how much this cost. Ms. Post. I do not think it reallv cost anything. They used scraps of lumber and whatever this hole puncher would cost that they would need in the office anyway. Otherwise, I really do not think it cost anything. Senator Harkin. I should not say this, but it is probably a good thing that you did not put this out to the Department of Defense for opening bids. [Laughter.] But Mrs. Post, you mentioned that a transition coordinator at the school and a community agency in Maryland helped in coordinating these transition services. Again, it was fortunate these services were available to Kirsten because, as Dr. Johnson testified, many students with disabilities do not have access to services, transition services, and again, we see it in the high rates of drop out. And again, Dr. Johnson, I do not know if you mentioned this or not, but over 50 percent of young people with disabilities are out of the work force within a few years after high school. Mr. Johnson. 43 percent is reflected in the study, close enough. Senator Harkin. About half. Again Mrs. Post, what would have happened to Kirsten if she was not able to get the type of services that she got? We know, but just tell us. What would have hap- pened? Ms. Post. She would have been sitting at home after graduation and we would have been trying to figure out what to do next or else she would have ended up in a very restrictive, segregative set- ting which is what she did not want, tnat we did not want. I think we were very fortunate that she was accepted as a client of the Bridges Project which is funded by the Marriott Foundation and administered by TransCen, Incorporated, an agency in Montgomery County. And they were really instrumental in helping her find this job. Senator Harkin. This is what we would like to encourage more of in the School-to-Work Transition bill that we have before us in providing these kind of services. They are very cost effective, ex- tremely cost effective. And I will bet — Kirsten, do you like your job? Ms. Davidson. Yes. Senator Harkin. That did not take long to answer. Pretty good, all right. Are you there 5 days a week? Ms. Davidson. I am there every day of the week, except I am not there only on the weekends. Senator Harkin. Very good, excellent. What time do you start work in the morning? Ms. Davidson. I start working 9:00 to 1:00. Senator Harkin. Very good, excellent. Congratulations. I know you are going to do well, and it is nice to have you here. Ms. Davidson. Thank you. Senator Harkin. I hope you did not get in trouble taking some time off work to come down here. If you did, let me know. Senator Simon can take care of that. [Laughter.] Dr. Johnson, just one last thing. Again, just for the record, what are some of the most important services and supports that need to be available to assist individuals with disabilities to make this 77 transition? Do not list them all, but what do you think are two or three of the most important that we could have? Mr. Johnson. One of the things I want to make very clear is that the programs and services as proposed within the Act itself are the ones that we need. The issue here is the specific kinds of services we are looking for are those which help to make the ac- commodations we have seen here, as well as some other very sim- ple kinds of accommodations that allow full participation to occur. And I mean full participation. The kinds of specialized services, if you will, and I find it difficult to delve in those for too long — we do need partnerships and this includes partnerships with the gen- eral education system, employers and those that have been rep- resented here, as well, including labor and the rest. We do, indeed, need the opportunity, and one of the strong points of the law in special education or transition service requirements has been the individualized transition planning that we have looked at based on assessment. In other words, a clear direction as to where we are going. I think even this can serve as, hopefully, even some type of model, I would think for the broader frame of other people's interest to serve individuals under the School-to- Work Opportunities Act and plan for those individuals individually. Those are some of the major things — collaboration and lots of ac- commodations and things like that. Senator Harkin. Collaboration — a lot of complex barriers out there, not only for the young people but for the parents. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator Harkin. A lot of different agencies they had to connect with. Mr. Johnson, yes. Senator Harkin. And again try to break that down so they can just do the sort of one-stop shopping, just get one school of transi- tion individual that they work with that can take care of all of the other to help them. Mr. Johnson. They need people to help them broker what is out there in terms of specialized services, in particular because eligi- bility requirements for each service you want to go after as a fam- ily member, and that is the personal side of me speaking, must be negotiated individually and at times disincentives. You can qualify for one and disqualify another one at the same time. Yes, those need to be built into. In other words, it is just not enough to allow an individual to go to the point of 12th grade, graduate and goodbye. There needs to be some connection here between — and this includes all youth — some connection to that employer, some connection to that next step in the community which is important. And the degree of inten- sity required certainly buries the function of who we are talking about and the needs that those people have. But the issue, there has got to be a bridge here. Senator Harkin. Again, I thank you for being here. Kirsten, thank you and Mrs. Post, Dr. Johnson, and to our chairman again, I thank you very much for your great leadership on this issue. There is no more sensitive individual in this Senate than Senator Simon on the issues of youth, youth education, work opportunities, and especially in this area of ensuring that the school-to-work tran- 78 sition program — if it is important for young, disabled kids, it is doubly important for those that have other barriers that they have to overcome. Again, I thank you for making sure we include these provisions in the bill. Senator Simon. We thank you, Senator Harkin. We thank the three of you and I just would like to add, Dr. Johnson, to your sta- tistics: when there are additional barriers, then the statistics on unemployment escalate even higher. The figures I have are about 3 years old. But, for example, among African Americans who have disabilities but are employable, the unemployment rate is about 82 percent or was 2 years ago. Mr. Johnson. Absolutely, it is terrible. Senator Simon. We thank the three of you very, very much. You are welcome to stay there as we listen to the other three witnesses, but if you wish to leave, we understand. Meaning no disrespect to Dr. Johnson and Mrs. Post, we are particularly proud of you here, Kirsten. Senator Harkin. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Senator Simon. Senator Simon. Ms. Milgram, we will hear from you first, here now among the remaining three witnesses. Ms. Milgram. Good morning. I am Donna Milgram and I am Di- rector of the Nontraditional Employment Training Project of Wider Opportunities for Women which is a national women's employment organization representing 500 training and employment organiza- tions that serve women in all 50 States, while I was also a member of the Coalition on Women and Job Training, comprising of 27 or- ganizations, working to ensure that employment and training poli- cies support girls and women and lead to their economic self-suffi- ciency. This morning I am testifying on behalf of the Coalition and my comments will be specifically directed to how girls are served. Girls not going to college are in need of our help most of all. Even in the 1990's, most young women graduating from high school and going straight into the work force can expect to take home paychecks that are 25 percent smaller than their male counterparts. This chart that I have here shows the occupational clusters of young women and young men, age 16 to 24 years of age. The young women are clustered in administrative support positions, 30 per- cent, and have an average wage of $364 per week. They are also clustered in sales occupations, 22 percent with an average wage per week of $313. For the young men, we see they are clustered in as operators, fabricators and laborers. Those are jobs, such as truck driver and surveyor, 39 percent, at an average wage of $393 per week. And in precision, production, craft and repair, a job such as a mechanics and carpenters with an average wage of $503 per week. When we summarize and compare what we see for young women age 16 to 24, going straight from high school to the work force with their high school diploma, is that 52 percent of them are in jobs with an average wage per week of $338 and 59 percent of the young men are in jobs with an average wage of $448 per week. That is a per week wage differential of $110 per week. Quite large. 79 Why are young women graduating from high school earning wages so much lower than young men? Data on vocational edu- cation and apprenticeship training provides us with at least a par- tial answer. Girls are being trained for different jobs than boys. In vocational education, they are clustered in clerical skills while boys are clustered in traded industry. Will the administration's School -to- Work Opportunities Act pre- pare girls for the high tech. high skilled and high paying jobs that characterize our changing labor market? This summer Wider Op- portunities for Women sought to answer these questions. By look- ing at the 15 school-to-work transition sites, some of which are ad- ministered by the U.S. Department of Labor, others by Jobs for the Future. We understood that the administration's School-to-Work bill would be building upon the present sites and we wanted to see how the Department of Labor was doing with regard to serving girls in their own sites. This chart presents our findings! We see that in the Illinois Youth Apprenticeship site, there are 28 boys and zero girls. Metal working and manufacturing technology is the occupational area. We see in the Maryland Mech Tech program, that there are 6 boys and zero girls. Machining is the occupational area. In Pickens County, SC, we see 4 boys and zero girls again in electronics. The National Alliance of Business, Sears Roebuck's site, 29 boys, 1 girl, repair technology. In the Toledo, OH site, 13 boys, 1 girl, in health, carpentry and insurance. In the Florida site, 20 boys and only 2 girls, telecommunications and electronics. In the Craftsmanship 2000 site, 14 boys, 3 girls, and metal work- ing. In the Illinois, Rockford site, 8 boys and 5 girls, metal working and manufacturing technology. In the Pennsylvania site, 91 boys and 9 girls in metal working. In the Careers and Education site, 3 boys, 13 girls, in training and education careers. In the Cornell site, 17 boys, 22 girls, in manufacturing tech- nology, health care and office technology. In the Pasadena site, 52 boys, 47 girls, in administrative, cleri- cal, production support, design type setting, camera operator, plate- making. In the Kalamazoo site, 14 boys, 63 girls, in allied health careers. And the Project ProTech site, 38 boys and 70 girls in allied health careers. In the Special Nontraditional Work site which is the Department of Labor site, which is in Flint, MI, there are 30 boys and 20 girls in automotive technology. As you can see, there are no girls in 3 of the 14 demonstration sites and only one or two in three other sites. Most revealing, how- ever, is that 90 percent of the girls are clustered in the last five demonstration sites which are traditional occupations for women. This chart shows that only 16 percent of girls are in nontradi- tional skills training, 8 percent of those are in the special dem- onstration site, the other 8 percent are in other programs; 55 per- 80 cent of the girls are in traditional skills training. This 29 percent we were not able to get the data on because the data was not col- lected in a segregated^ fashion. What are the reasons why the girls are not in the high tech or high skilled sites? We asked an administrator of one of the pro- grams that had no girls and we were told that the work was associ- ated with being dirty and that girls generally are not interested. WOW thinks it is unlikely that this is a barrier for the girls since 13 of the girls are doing nursing externships which requires them to change Ded pans and bathe patients. Certainly very dirty work. We think it is more likely that the program elements are not there for training girls in nontraditional occupations. And we know that this can be done because it has been done in the Flint, MI site. And there the sorts of things that are included are female mentors and proactive recruitment. The question becomes, are these program elements a service de- livery issue or a legislative issue? We believe they are both. In De- cember of 1991, the Nontraditional Employment for Women Act was signed into law and it amended the Job Training Partnership Act. It requires the setting of goals for training women in nontradi- tional jobs. And in fact, in the past 2 years, there has been great progress in JTPA for training women in nontraditional jobs. Senator Simon. If you could conclude your remarks. Ms. Milgram. To conclude, we feel that similar provisions that are in the Nontraditional Employment for Women Act need to also be included in this School-to-Work Opportunities Act or we think the sort of results we saw here with this chart where girls are es- sentially pretty much not in the high tech, high occupations will be repeated. We have developed boiler plate legislative provisions, based upon the Nontraditional Employment for Women Act with some other additional provisions to support girls, that we would like to ask would be offered as amendments to the School-to-Work Opportuni- ties Act, so that we can make sure that girls are also going to be included in the high wage, high tech occupations and not simply relegated to the low wage occupations. Thank you. Senator Simon. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Milgram may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. Mr. Weckstein? Mr. Weckstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Paul Weckstein, Co-Director for the Center for Law and Education. Our national voc-ed project has been trying to make sure that the Per- kins Vocational Education Act really works for all students and it has given us two very different kinds of experience that are directly relevant to S. 1361. On the one hand we have learned that you in Congress put to- gether precisely the right pieces in the 1990 Perkins Act. Pieces that should now be transferred into the School-to-Work bill. We have been working in a number of places, including Chicago and some other cities represented on the committee. And what we have found is when you put academic and vocational teachers together and you tell them, your task is to come up with a way to integrate academic and vocational education across the entire academic cur- 81 riculum in a way that gives students strong understanding and ex- perience in all aspects of the industry, they are studying, not just technical and production skills, but also planning, finance, manage- ment, labor, community issues, underlying principles of technology, and health, safety and environment, penal issues in those indus- tries; and that you should plan it with the active involvement of other teachers, parents, students, area residents, including workers and make sure you build in ways that students from all special populations will participate and succeed, when you tell teachers that, those teachers along with their students get very energized and become tremendously inventive; particularly so if you add that the curriculum for the link school and community by engaging stu- dents in studying their community needs and resources and on working on viable development projects and enterprises to improve community life. For example, starting a student run credit union, as in Chicago; converting city trucks to electric power or establishing a health clinic. Students then bring literature, writing skills, math and science and social studies to investigating and working on, for ex- ample, all aspects of the transportation industry, its financing, the physics and chemistry of internal combustion engines, environ- mental issues, etc. That is the good news. The bad news is that most teachers, students and schools are not engaged in this task because it has simply never been laid before them. They never hear of these requirements and provisions in the Perkins Act. Drawing on these contrasting lessons, we now face the challenge of coming up with a bill that will result in high quality opportunities for all youth linking school and work. How do we do this when American firms are not now prepared to generate enough work based placements for all youth? Most pro- vide little significant training to their own line workers below the management level, let alone to "marginal high school youth." Second, as America's choice in BLS statistics have told us, we have not yet been about creating enough high skill, high wage jobs to connect youth with, especially in low income, urban, and rural areas. Third, change is constant. We cannot predict by the time stu- dents, 15 year olds become adults, precisely what their career goals will be, precisely what jobs will be available, or precisely what the specific technical skills will be needed for those jobs. Fourth, as we have heard from other members of the panel, major in the qualities in tracking of people exist both within our schools and in our work places. And fifth, as I have suggested, parents, students and teachers in school remain largely un-empowered and unaware of the laws that you write to address these problems. To deal with all of this then, the bill must be strengthened in a number of ways. Let us start with how to ensure quality. First, borrowing the definition of general occupational skills from Per- kins, make sure that understanding and experience in all aspects of the industry is built into the school base component, the work base component, and the skills students get certified in and are ex- pected to master. This will provide (a) a rich platform for integrat- ing academic and vocational skills; (b) transferrable skills to pro- 82 tect against inevitable change; (c) the skills needs for high perform- ance work organizations and innovation; (d) the skills needed to en- gage in community economic development and business creation where there are not enough good jobs; and (e) overcoming the tracking of students between those who plan, decide, and see the big picture and the rest of us. Second, make sure this bill provides high level academics, suffi- cient to ensure that students, if they choose, can enter a four-year college upon high school graduation. Otherwise this will be seen as a second class program by parents and teachers and cut off student options. Third, as much as possible target work based placements to high performance work organizations. Creating high quality placements in a typical low wage job setting will be extremely difficult. Now let us turn to how to provide good opportunities for all youth. And I would support many of the specific recommendations that have already been made. First, to deal with the limited num- ber of traditional work placements. If we are going to do it for all students, we have to define work base placements to include work placements generated by schools themselves, including serious school base student run enterprises in businesses, community de- velopment projects, and community service programs. Second, tie the grants to school systems that are restructuring their academic programs so that all students engage in project base multidisciplinary learning that integrates theory and hands-on ex- perience, making this program one academically equivalent part of an overall school reform strategy. Third, confront the equity problem for various populations by building in provisions that are as strong as and refine the Perkins provisions for equal access to supports necessary to succeed and re- sponsibility for identifying and remedying the causes of unequal participation and success. Fourth, for out of school youth require schools to take vigorous steps to reach out while giving community based organizations an expanded role. And fifth, the provisions of this Act will never reach those for whom they are intended and we will never create high quality school -to- work opportunities for all youth unless we give them the enabling tools for themselves to play an active role through (a) an unambiguous guarantee to all youth of these opportunities; (b) the information, assistance and authority for youth and parents they need to obtain these guarantees, participate along with teachers in shaping programs and remedying the problems that will inevitably occur; and (c) strong State and Federal responsibilities for technical assistance in monitoring, including a reorientation of their mission to be client advocates. Finally, I urge you to take a much more careful approach to waivers in this bill and in other bills now before you. Before you transfer your constitutional right as the people's legislative voice to future unknown secretaries of education and labor, not only regula- tions but acts of Congress in this Act and the others themselves can be waived with extremely little in the way of objective criteria or public involvement, including the very provisions that are most 83 critical to Perkins and indeed the provisions you have not even written yet but will decide are critical to ESEA. If you carefully look at the call for increased waivers, you will see in many cases, it is not coming from the vigors of Federal law, but from the effect of absence of Federal law. It is the point I made ear- lier. People at the local level do not know what Federal law is and complain about things that somebody in the district office told them they have to do and think is Federal law. Thank you. Senator Simon. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Weckstein may be found in the appendix. 1 Senator Simon. Mr. Apling? Mr. Apling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Apling. I am a Specialist in Social Legislation in the Education and Public Welfare Division of the Congressional Research Service. I am accompanied by two colleagues from CRS, Ann Lordeman and Bob Lyke. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before you on S. 1361. CRS has been asked to examine implementation issues regarding S. 1361. We have presented our analysis in a CRS general distribu- tion memo that we will summarize in our testimony today. I re- quest that this memo be placed in the record. Senator Simon. It will be entered in the record. Mr. Apling. Thank you. The memorandum discusses several broad issues. Today I will concentrate on the following aspects of the bill. Waiving requirements of current Federal education and training programs, joint administration by the Departments of Education and Labor, the relationship between State occupational skill standards that the bill would require, and national skill standards that would be created under other proposed legislation, and the promotion of State and local flexibility within broad pro- gram requirements. S. 1361 aims to promote a national school-to-work system built on current programs, rather than to create a new separate school- to-work effort. A key component for building on existing Federal re- sources would be waivers from certain Federal requirements in education and training programs. The use of waivers raises several issues. First, the bill does not permit waivers that would change the basic purposes of programs or alter key provisions. These limits may impede the creation of an effective school-to-work program that has different goals. For example, a central purpose of many Federal education and training programs is to serve disadvantaged students. How can funds from these programs be used to support school-to-work pro- grams that aim to serve all students? A second issue is that it may be difficult to determine the pri- mary purposes and central provisions of current programs which could lead to confusion over what can and cannot be waived. Care- ful scrutiny would be required for each program subject to the waiver authority. A third issue is how specific the bill should be about the particu- lar requirements that could be waived? The bill contains two ap- proaches. For the Department of Education programs, the bill does not specify requirements for which waivers would be considered, 84 while for the Job Training Partnership Act, it identifies specific re- quirements that could be waived. Less specificity could increase the Department of Education's administrative flexibility, but could de- crease the influence Congress has over the changes in current pro- grams. In addition, lack of specific guidance could raise uncertainties among States and localities about how much flexibility they have in using the current programs. In contrast, the greater specificity for the Department of Labor could possibly provide more guidance and Congressional intent but also limits the Department's flexibil- ity. Finally, issues about waivers could arise in other Congressional legislation that is under consideration and would seem desirable not to have different lists of waivers available to State and local participants. Different waiver authorities could perpetuate a frag- mented, rather than a coordinated system of education and train- ing programs, if State and localities had to sort out which waivers would be most applicable for which pieces of legislation. Another central component of S. 1361 is that it would be jointly administered by the Departments of Education and Labor. Joint administration raises several general questions which the bill leaves unanswered. How would general administrative provisions and guarantees, such as student privacy be maintained? How much would joint administrative activities delay program implementa- tion? Who arbitrates disagreements and policy differences between the two departments? And finally, who is ultimately responsible for program administration? The bill would require States receiving implementation grants to describe how they would establish a system of occupational skill standards and certify that students establishing school-to- work pro- grams meet those standards. This requirement raises the question of how these standards and certificates would be coordinated with the proposed national occupational standards and certificates that would be created under the Goals 2000 legislation? The bill would require that States take into account the work of that board. At the same time, the two pieces of legislation could create competing national and State skill standard systems. The result could be a confusing array of State standards and certificates together with a national system created under the Goals 2000 leg- islation. The bill permits States and communities to create school-to-work systems by building on a wide variety of programs. At the same time, it requires three basic components — work base learning, school base learning, and connecting activities. While allowing State and local variation within a broad set of criteria, issues could be raised about this approach. For example, if the ultimate goal is to create a national school-to-work structure, too much variation could lead to dissimilar, disconnected programs rather than a na- tional system. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the issues we have discussed today in connection with S. 1361 should not be seen as a negative assess- ment of the proposal. Such issues could arise with any national proposal to improve the transition from school-to- work. Other pro- posals would also have to address — how to incorporate school-to- 85 work initiatives into the environment of current education and training programs; how to coordinate program administration among Federal agencies; how to certify students' occupational skills; and how tobuild a national system while allowing for State and local flexibility. Thank you very much. Senator Simon. We thank you and we thank your colleagues also for your work. I have over the years appreciated the work that CRS has done in many fields and we appreciate this. [The prepared statement of Mr. Apling may be found in the ap- pendix.] Senator Simon. You touch on one of the fields that Mr. Weckstein talked about and that is the area of waivers. I guess what we want is to provide some flexibility, but still enough guid- ance and any specific suggestions. We will read your report and will analyze the legislation. Mr. Weckstein, any specific suggestions you may have, I would welcome also. One of the reasons for some flexibility is that we hope we can end up with some coordination of programs. One of the small amendments I got adopted about a year ago wa to permit coordina- tion of all Federal programs on Indian reservations, so that you do not have a proliferation of just a few people working on a variety or programs, but are able to coordinate. And it has caused a little bit of chaos in some cases, but it has pulled people together to be able to work together more effectively. My hope is that we may have some of that and some greater utilization of existing re- sources. Ms. Milgram, we have in the legislation a specific provision to encourage getting women into the nontraditional programs. But we welcome suggestions that you have in terms of encouraging that more. We want this to be inclusive — as Kirsten and her mother and Dr. Johnson testified — for the disabled community. We also want any suggestions you have here. Ms. Milgram. I appreciate that, Senator Simon. It is our experi- ence that you need to have the specific program elements spelled out and that if you do not, the language that is in there now is comparable to the language that was in the JTPA Act before the passage of the Nontraditional Employment for Women Act and it was quite frankly ineffective. And while we advocated it prior to Nontraditional Employment for Women Act's passage, that the JTPA system should train women in nontraditional jobs, quite frankly we were ineffective. It was only when we had several pages of legislation that spelled out the program elements, making the points that you need to have proactive recruitment, career informa- tion, setting of goals, reporting, and data collection that segregated, it was only then that the JTPA system was responsive. So we would be happy to work with you in the process so that these sorts of provisions could be included as amendments, as well as be a resource to the administration with their implementation. Senator Simon. We thank you. And those statistics that you brought us are startling. They clearly indicate that it is not easy to break some of our bad traditions. I do have some additional questions I would like to submit in writing. Unfortunately, I am late for my next meeting. So what I would like to do for Mr. Apling and Mr. Weckstein and Ms. Milgram is to submit some additional 86 questions, and if you could respond as quickly as you can, because I would like to get this legislation moving along very quickly. [Appendix follows:! Appendix Prepared Statement of Richard W. Riley and Robert B. Reich Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Simon, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Thurmond and members of the Committee, we thank you for this opportunity to appear here today to discuss the "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. Our joint statement reflects the Department of Education's and the Department of Labor's unprecedented collaboration in the design and implementation of a major new education and training initiative. For our Departments, "reinventing govern- ment" has included working in partnership to design a new nationwide school-to- work system to create opportunities for students from all educational, social, and economic backgrounds. This new system is designed to be "bottoms-up" and outcome oriented, and, through "venture capital," is intended to bring to bear resources from other Federal, State, and local programs to leverage systemic reform. We have benefited greatly from the leadership of this Committee which has been so committed to improving the transition from school to work for all young people. You have laid much of the foundation for this initiative and have encouraged us to join with you in designing a comprehensive system that prepares young Americans for higher skill, higher wage careers. BUILDING ON SUCCESSES This legislation builds on the work of many States and localities that are rapidly developing innovative school-to-work programs which combine academic and occupa- tional learning. Practitioners from across the country have met with us to share their experiences in operating youth apprenticeship, tech-prep, career academies, coop education and other programs that prepare students for work and to offer their counsel for developing a nationwide system that goes beyond any single program. The "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 reflects the recommendations of a wide spectrum of business, education, labor, civil rights and community based or- ganizations, and State and local governmental organizations that have a strong in- terest in how American students prepare for careers. The Departments of Education and Labor have consulted with a wide ranging number of individuals throughout the development of the legislation. As a result of this input, we have a sound bill supported by numerous diverse organizations representing all of the stakeholders who are key to successful School-to-Work partnerships. An attachment to our state- ment lists organizations that have provided written statements supportive of the legislation. Finally, we are enormously pleased that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act al- ready has solid bipartisan support. Thus far, there are 15 Senate sponsors and 42 House sponsors. We hope that, as this proposal makes its way through the legisla- tive process, additional co-sponsors from both parties will sign on. This initiative is premised on the belief that work -based learning integrated with related academic training can provide American youth with the knowledge and skills necessary to make a successful transition from school to a first job in a nigher skill, higher-wage career. Throughout the spring and summer, and culminating in President Clinton's visit to the opportunity Skyway Program in Georgetown, Dela- ware, a number of you have joined us on site visits to observe the impact on stu- dents of learning where there is no artificial division between what is practical and hands-on and what is academic. During these visits, the students we met talked about "doors being opened for them," "meeting role models," "expanding one's inter- ests," "hands on experience is what counts" and "learning a lot more because it is fun." Finally, one young woman in the Opportunity Skyway Program, which pre- pares students for careers in aircraft maintenance or as pilots, spoke eloquently of the need for such opportunities to be available to students. NEED FOR & COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL-TO-WORK SYSTEM As this Committee knows too well, many of America's young people do not possess the basic academic and occupational skills necessary for the changing workplace or further education. Three-fourths of America's young people enter the workforce without four-year col- lege degrees. Research indicates that the early years in the labor market for many 87 graduating high school students are characterized as a "churning process" where youth who do find employment simply move from one low-skill job to another. Many do not find stable, career-track jobs for a good five to ten years after graduating from high school. We also know that the wages, benefits, and working conditions of Americans with- out college degrees are eroding rapidly. In the 1980's, the gap in earnings between high school and college graduates doubled; for those without high school degrees, the gap grew even wider. The reasons are complex, but two factors stand out: the lack of a comprehensive and formal system to prepare youth for higher skill, higher wage jobs; and the shift in demand in favor of workers with skills and against workers without them. While our major international competitors are refining and improving their school-to-work transition systems, the United States has yet to develop one. In prac- tical terms, this means that, unlike their peers in Japan or Germany, for example, young Americans entering the workforce after high school make their way into their first jobs with little guidance, direction, or support. Meanwhile, many American employers tell us they are unable to hire entry-level workers with strong academic and occupational skills, thereby harming their ability to compete successfully against international competitors that are increasingly transforming themselves into high performance work organizations. As President Clinton said in his visit to the Opportunity Skyway program earlier this month: "If we are going to prosper in the world toward which we are heading, we have to reach out to every one of our young people who want a job and don t have the training to get it. We don't have a person to waste . . . when we waste them . . . the rest ofus pay. We pay in unemployment. We pay in welfare. We pay in jail costs. We pay in drug use costs." PUTTING IN PLACE A FRAMEWORK The "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993" puts in place the framework for a high-quality system in all States to serve significant numbers of young people, in- cluding those who plan on continuing their education at a college or university. This initiative is not about establishing a new program that will compete with existing programs for limited resources and customers; rather it is about putting in place the building blocks for a nationwide system. We expect that States and localities will be able to build such systems by enriching and expanding upon existing pro- grams— such as youth apprenticeship, tech-prep education, cooperative education, career academies, and school-to-apprenticeship programs. LINKS WITH GOALS 2000 This proposal is closely linked to the "Educate America Act: Goals 2000" which Sromotes the development and encourages the voluntary adoption of national aca- emic and skill standards. These standards will provide a framework within which School-to-Work Opportunities programs will be developed and administered. All stu- dents, including students in a School-to-Work Opportunities program, would be held to the same high content and performance standards developed by States under the Goals 2000 legislation. School-to-Work Opportunities programs would have to pre- pare students — both through school-based and work -based learning — to meet these challenging standards. In addition, the establishment of national skill standards in broad occupational areas would guide the development of what a student in a School-to-Work Opportunities program would need to know do to earn a skills cer- tificate. We must set high expectations for all of our youth, college bound or not, and seize this opportunity to enlist employers' active involvement in preparing youth for work. Education, busmess, labor, and communities need to come together; academic prepa- ration and occupational training should not be offered in isolation from the work- place. legislation's primary features The proposed legislation provides "venture capital" for States and communities to underwrite the initial costs of planning and establishing a statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system. These systems would be driven by State and local decision makers and ultimately be maintained with other Federal, State, local and private resources. Although the legislation provides for a significant degree of local flexibility and creativity so that programs can address local needs and respond to changes in the 88 local labor market, there will be common elements in all programs. All School-to- Work Opportunities programs would contain three core components: Work-based learning includes providing students with a planned program of job training in a broad range of tasks in an occupational area, as well as paid work experience and mentoring', School-based learning includes a coherent multi-year sequence of instruction in career majors — typically beginning in the eleventh grade and including one or two years of postsecondary education — tied to high academic and skill stand- ards as proposed in the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act." School-based learn- ing must also provide career exploration and counseling, and periodic evalua- tions to identify students' academic strengths and weaknesses. Connecting Activities would ensure coordination of the work and school-based learning components of a School-to-Work Opportunities program, such as pro- viding technical assistance in designing work-based learning components, matching students with employers' work-based learning opportunities, and col- lecting information on what happens to students after they complete the pro- gram. Students completing a School-to-Work Opportunities program would earn a high school diploma, and often a certificate from a postsecondary institution. They would also get a portable industry -recognized credential certifying competency in an occu- pational area. Most importantly, these students would be ready to start a first job on a career track or pursue further education and training. Under this legislation, States will have multiple avenues to build schcol-to-work systems with Federal support — development grants, implementation grants, and waivers. First, we expect every State that applies to get a development grant, which can be used both to produce a comprehensive plan and to begin the developmental work of constructing a system. Second, once a State has an approved plan, it can be considered for a five-year implementation grant. The school-to-work implementa- tion funds will roll out in "waves" with leading-edge States awarded the first grants with the understanding that their efforts are, in part, to inform and improve subse- quent efforts. This will enable the pace to pick up as we go along. We anticipate that with sufficient funds we will be able to Tbegin supporting implementation in all States over the next four years. State plans and applications for implementation funds must address some fun- damental issues to ensure a successful state-wide school-to-work system. These in- clude: Ensuring opportunities for all students to participate in School-to-Work Op- portunities programs, including students who are disadvantaged students, stu- dents of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, students with disabil- ities, students with limited English proficiency, low achieving and academically talented students, and former students who may have dropped out of school; Ensuring opportunities for young women to participate in programs that lead to high-performance high-paying jobs including jobs in nontraditional employ- ment; Continuing the School-to-Work Opportunities program when funds under this proposal are no longer available. Coordinating funds under the School-to-Work Opportunities program with funds from related Federal education and training programs (such as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act, the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, the Family Support Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Adult Education Act). Stimulating and supporting School-to-Work Opportunities programs to meet the requirements of the proposal and expanding the program throughout the State. Implementation funds may be expended for activities undertaken to help a State implement its School-to-Work Opportunities system. The legislation provides that such activities may include, for example, recruiting and providing assistance to em- ployers; conducting outreach activities to promote collaboration by key partners; pro- viding training for teachers, employers, workplace mentors, counselors and others; providing labor market information to partnerships to help determine which higher skill, higher wage occupations are in demand; designing or adapting work based learning programs; and working with other States that are developing or imple- menting School-to-Work Opportunities systems. In addition, funds authorized by the legislation could be used, for example, to provide services to individuals who require additional support in order to participate effectively in a School-to-Work Opportuni- ties. 89 Third, States will also have the opportunity to seek waivers to provisions of relat- ed Federal education and job training programs. Waivers are an additional resource to assist in the start up and implementation of School -to-Work Opportunities pro- grams and to facilitate coordination between this new effort and existing programs. Though the pace of program expansion will depend on the amount of funds appro- priated for tne legislation, we have structured the initiative to enable rapid, nation- wide activity. Fourth, the legislation also authorizes support for direct Federal grants to local communities. These grants will be for communities that are prepared to implement a School-to-Work Opportunities program, but that are in States not yet ready for i mple mentation . Fifth, grants will be available for urban and rural areas characterized by high un- employment and poverty, to give these areas special support to help overcome the substantial challenges they face in building effective School-to-Work Opportunities programs. Finally, funds are also provided to the Secretaries to offer training and technical assistance to States, local partnerships and others, to conduct research and dem- onstration projects and, in collaboration with States, to establish a system of per- formance standards. SAFEGUARDS The proposal also provides safeguards for the School-to-Work Opportunities pro- gram to protect students and existing workers. Among other stipulations, these safe- guards will prohibit the displacement of any currently employed worker or reduction in the hours of nonovertime work, wages or employment benefits. The bill also en- sures the integrity of existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agree- ments and the applicability of health, safety and civil rights laws. PARTNERSHIPS The proposal requires broad-based partnerships in States and communities — with- out these partnerships real and lasting changes will be difficult to achieve. States applying for Federal development and implementation funds must show how: The Governor, the chief State School Officer, State agency officials responsible for job training and employment, economic development, and postsecondary education and other appropriate officials are to be involved in the development and implementation 01 a School-to-Work Opportunities systems, and; The State will enlist the active and continued participation of employers, sec- ondary and postsecondary educational institutions, labor, local elected officials, community based organizations and many others parties that should be part of a School-to-Work Opportunities system. At the local level, partnerships composed of employers, public secondary and post- secondary educational institutions or agencies, and labor organizations as well as other appropriate entities will be responsible for local school-to-work programs. CONCLUSION The Departments of Education and Labor will continue to work in a collaborative relationship to implement an effective School-to-Work Opportunities system. Our collaborative efforts are a model for these State and local partners as they move for- ward with this new initiative. We believe the School-to-Work Opportunities Act can help produce the skilled, prepared, and flexible workforce that the new economy demands. That is why this proposal is such an important part of the Clinton Administration's workforce invest- ment strategy. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your commitment to work to gain rapid and bi- partisan enactment of this important legislation, and for your ongoing leadership in this area. We look forward to continuing to work with you, other Committee mem- bers, and other leaders in the Senate deeply committed to developing a comprehen- sive School-to-Work system in this nation. Responses to Questions of Senator Simon from Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Secretary of Education Richard Riley Question 1. I am pleased that the bill requires coordination of existing funds. And it does it through positive incentives. By giving States the flexibility to decide how best to leverage existing funds, we are able to encourage coordination without sin- gling our specific programs. Can you expand on this issue? How else can ye ensure 90 that this legislation serves as a catalyst, if you will, for encouraging coordination of existing Federal programs and funding? Answer 1. The proposed legislation includes a number of provisions to promote co- ordination between the school-to-work initiative and existing Federal education and job training programs. First, it requires that a State School-to-Work Opportunities plan which will accompany the application for Federal implementation grants in- clude a description of now the state's school-to-work system will coordinate funds from state and private sources with funds available from the School-to-Work pro- gram and a series off related federal programs. These programs include the Carl D. Perkins Act, the Adult Educational Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, The Family Support Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Successful applications for implementation grants must show how these federal and state job training and education programs will be integrated in order to establish and maintain a statewide School-to-Work system. Second, as part of this process, States should consider requests for waivers to stat- utory or regulatory requirements in other federal job training and education pro- grams in order to facilitate coordination. Examples off coordination include joint funding between School-to-work and Perkins Vocational Education Act for curricu- lum and staff development in academic and occupational instruction and providing remedial education and support services for economically disadvantaged partici- pants through the Job Training Partnership Act. Finally, since implementation funds for a state will decline over a period of about five years, it will be vary important for states and localities to leverage support from other federal and state programs. When federal School-to-Work funds are no longer available, the School-to-Work systems will be maintained with the leveraged re- sources. Question 2. Your cooperation in developing and implementing this legislation is unprecedented. Now, there are some skeptics out there who don't believe this can happen — who don't believe that a grant system could be administered jointly by the Secretaries of Labor and Education. How will joint administration take place? Answer 2. Truly merging the worlds of school and work requires a now commit- ment to genuine cooperation. This is starting at the federal level. All activities under the School-to-Work initiative will be conducted and administered jointly bv the Departments of Education and Labor. In practical terms, this means that both agencies' approval will be required before awarding any grants or contracts. Application notices and evaluation criteria will be jointly developed and published. Review of grant applications will involve staff from both offices along with independ- ent experts in a peer review process. Monitoring of state and community progress will be jointly conducted. In sum, Education and Labor will share authority for this initiative. An inter-agency team has already begun to work on how thin will be done. Question 3. What hinds of work -based opportunities are available for young people in rural areas? Answer 3. Rural areas will face particular problems in identifying a sufficient number of employers to provide all of the elements of quality work-based learning opportunities. In addition, students could be miles from the nearest participating employer. The work -based learning component is essential to the success of the program. Therefore, rural partnerships will need to be particularly creative to assure that stu- dents receive quality work -based learning, one option is to form a consortia of small businesses. By rotating students among several businesses, students can gain the stills required in a career major while the business serves a larger number of stu- dents. School-based enterprises, such as school stores or print shops, can also build skills, provide opportunities to apply academic knowledge, and teach responsibility and teamwork. The High Poverty Area Grants will be available to eligible rural areas on a com- petitive basis. These funds are to be used to provide support for a comprehensive range of education, training, and support services for youth residing in such areas. Question 4. We must make sure that all students have access to these programs. That includes out-of-school and disadvantaged youth. How will we assure access for them? Answer 4. There are many elements in the School-to-Work initiative that will be useful tools for reaching out to high school drop-outs and for retaining at-risk stu- dents: 91 10 percent of the initiative's funds are earmarked for grants for High Poverty Areas to assist urban and rural areas characterized by high unemployment and poverty to build an effective School-to-Work system. These funds may be used to serve both drop-outs and at-risk students. The planning and development process involves community based organiza- tions, and others familiar with the needs of at-risk youth. States and localities must insure that there will be opportunities to partici- pate for all students. The emphasis on early career exploration and the linking of work -based and school-based learning will provide new incentives to motivate continued school attendance. Work experience is used to give practical meaning to academic con- cepts and to transform traditional instruction into alternative learning experi- ences. In addition, communities may choose to employ a number of specific strategies to serve at-risk students. These include: Linking School-to-Work programs with services funded under the Job Train- ing Partnership Act for students that are economically disadvantaged. JTPA funds can be used for a wide range of activities including recruitment of drop- outs, assessment and case management, supportive services and remedial edu- cation. For in-school students who are at-risk of dropping out, JTPA can fund dropout prevention activities such as counseling, tutoring and study skills train- ing, and pre-employment and work maturity skill training. Serving at-risk students through Career Academies. Career Academies are "schools within schools" that blend applied academics, workplace exposure, ca- reer counseling, and vocational courses. The highly structured program tradi- tionally provides a supportive educational environment for low achieving stu- dents. . . . Establishing a graduation assistance program to help participants find jobs and to encourage businesses to make commitments for job placement. How we will assure that people disabilities have access. As States prepare their school- to -work opportunities plan in order to receive im- plementation grants, they must determine how the program will serve all students, ^he proposal defines uaU students" as students from a broad range of backgrounds and circumstances and specifically cites those with disabilities. The definition of "all students" is the same as in the '^Educate America Act: Goals 2000." States must also describe in their plan, how they will ensure opportunities for stu- dents with disabilities to participate in school-to-work opportunities programs. We also expect that State and local partnerships responsible for school -to -work program will include representatives of organizations and agencies familiar with the needs of students who have disabilities. And that women have access? In addition to describing how all students will be ensured opportunities to partici- pate in School-to-Work Opportunities programs, State school-to-work plans must specifically describe how the State will ensure opportunities for young women. These opportunities must be conducted in a manner that leads to employment in high-performance, high-paying job, including jobs in which women have traditionally have been under-represented. Question 5. How does this legislation fit in with national skill standards? And Goals 2000? Answer 5. The School-to-Work initiative would require that completion of the pro- gram results in receipt of a skill certificate. These certificates must take into ac- count the work of the National Skills Standards Board, and the criteria established under the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" currently pending in Congress. Dur- ing the time the National Skill Standards Board is developing its skill standards, a state could issue parallel certificates that take into account the work of the Board and the criteria the Board must follow. Once the Board is in place, the skills stand- ards and certificates achieved in a School-to-Work program could be identical to the ones developed through the national skills standards system and endorsed by the National Board. Skills standards provide a valuable framework for developing meaningful School- to-Work (and other employment and training) programs. They ensure that quality requirements are met and that the skills taught are relevant to occupational areas. A certificate provides a student who has successfully completed a School-to-Work program with a portable credential of mastery and competence that can be recog- nized by industry nationwide. 92 Skills certificates are intended to be "national" in character to maximize port- ability and unify training activities. However, because we believe that skills stand- ards must be voluntary (to better ensure true adherence and to distinguish between this effort and a regulatory requirement), we must be careful not to mandate that states, localities and companies use only the national skill standards. We certainly hope, however, that the national standards will become "state of the art" and the preferred choice — and we have included incentives for this. Goals 2000 promotes the development and encourages the voluntary adoption of national academic and skills standards. These standards will provide a framework within which School-to-Work programs will be developed and administered. For ex- ample, all students in a School-to-Work program would be held to the same high content and performance standards developed by states under the Goals 2000 legis- lation. School-to-Work programs would have to prepare students — both through school-based and work-based learning — to meet these challenging standards. In ad- dition, the establishment of national skills standards in-broad occupational areas would guide the development of what a student in a School-to-Work program would have to know and be able to do to earn a skills certificate. Responses to Questions of Senator Durenberger from Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Secretary of Education Richard Riley Question 1. Many people involved in school-to-work training in my home state of Minnesota have reviewed this legislation. They're told me that they believe shill training — or at least thinking about careers — ought to begin at a much, much ear- lier grade level than contemplated by this bill. The School-to-Work opportunities Act allows training to take place in lltn and 12th grades. In your opimon, would it be a good idea to: 1) make it clear in this legislation that skill training/career-training/ job skills development should begin earlier, and/or amend other legislation, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to make it clear that this should be a priority throughout a child's education? Answer 1. We fully agree that students should begin career exploration before the 11th grade. Students as early as the upper elementary grades should have an ori- entation to a wide range of occupational areas. In the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, career exploration and training could start well before the 11th grade. In fact some of the promising models citeain the legislation — career academies and youth apprenticeships begin in the 9th and 10th grades. The legislation states a School-to-Work program should start no later than the 11th grade. However, this doesn't preclude a program from starting earlier. In fact as recent research from the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation shows, starting such a program earlier is particularly important for at-risk youth. We are willing to work with the Congress to make clear when a School-to-Work program could begin. However we do not believe that any changes to the ESEA are required. Question 2. Many small businesses say this just isn't affordable for me to bring on kids, or to take time out of my workweek to train kids? Why would a small busi- ness want to take on a program like this? Can you think of ways of making it more attractive for small business to get involved? Answer 2. We are finding that employers — including small and medium sized businesses — are motivated to join with us in this initiative because it gives them the opportunity to shape the skills of their future workforce. Employera — in partner- ship with labor — need and want to play a key role in the design and implementation of this system. Private sector involvement will take the form of defining the skills requirement for jobs, participating in the governance of the program, offering qual- ity work experiences for students, and providing job opportunities for students and graduates. We have found that the cost to business is not their greatest concern. They view this proposal as a unique opportunity to become involved in the development of cur- riculum in the schools. Small and medium sized businesses have a special incentive since these are the most significant source of employment for youth particularly those without a college degree. In addition, corporate downsizing means that cor- porations are increasingly contracting certain functions to smaller companies. Therefore, higher skill jobs that were previously in larger corporations are trans- ferred to small businesses. Recognizing this transition, employers understand the necessity of training future workers while they are still in school. Question 3. In Minnesota, we have jurisdictional squabbles over apprenticeships between various state agencies and various private groups that precluded our re- cently posed state youth Apprenticeship legislation from taking effect earlier. The 93 School-to-Work Opportunities Act does not designate a single person responsible for final decision-making and coordination in each State. To avoid problems like the one in Minnesota shouldn't the legislation clearly designate that the Governor, or some other state government representative, has the authority to make final decisions and say that *^.he buck stops here?" Answers 3. Although the legislation identifies the Governor, the Chief State School Officer, and the state agency heads for postsecondary education, job training, and economic development as the key collaborators at the state level, the bill does not identify a particular role for each in the process nor does it give one party more responsibility in the process. Our reasoning is straightforward. We do not want to prescribe from Washington a one-size-fits-all process for every State, but believe in- stead each State should determine a partnership approach that makes sense based on its own structure and circumstances. Question 4. Explain bow the waivers provided in this bill will work to coordinate and consolidate existing programs. What kinds of waiver requests would you antici- pate getting? What barriers do you see now in federal laws or regulations that waiv- ers would help eliminate? Answer 4. One of the primary goals of the program is to foster better integration of federal Job training and education programs to build a comprehensive school-to- Work program. To assist that process, the legislation authorizes the secretaries to grant waivers of certain provisions of such programs as the Carl D. Perkins voca- tional Education and High Technology Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. States will be required to identify statutory or regulatory provisions in the rel- evant legislation that impede their abilities to implement a School-to-Work program and to submit their requested waivers to the appropriate Department. States must also waive similar requirements in state law. Waivers will not be granted to any f>rovisions affecting an existing jprogram's essential purposes or goals, eligibility, al- ocation of funds or safeguards. Some examples of waivers are: Job Training Partnership Acts Currently the JTPA summer youth employment and training program limits the use of funds to the summer or other vacation periods. A waiver of this requirement would provide greater flexibility and allow these funds to be used in School-to-Work programs during the school year. Currently JTPA requires that at least 50% of a Service Delivery Area's (SDA) funds be spent on direct training to participants and no more than 20% be spent on administrative costs. Other funds may be spent on non-training related and sup- portive services. A waiver could he requested to modify the current cost limitations on JTPA fund: in order to increase coordination between JTPA and a school-to-work program. For instance, an SDA may need to make more funds available for support- ive services to meet the needs of disadvantaged in a school-to-work program Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The purpose of chapter I in the ESEA is to improve the quality of academic in- struction available to disadvantaged students. Chapter I currently requires districts to account for federal funds by tracking services to individual students. This encour- ages "pull-out" approaches that do not necessarily improve the quality of education students receive. Regulations could be waived to permit tracking of resources at the level of the classroom or school. This would enhance efforts at school-wide reform envisioned in Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Both Title VII of the ESEA and the Perkins Vocational Education Act provide funds for bilingual vocational instruction. Regulations could be waived to permit commingle of funds from Chapter I bilingual education and Perkins Act Bilingual Vocational Technical Education. Prepared Statement of John Dow, Jr. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Dow, Jr. and I am President of the National Academy Foundation (NAF). I also bring greetings on behalf of the Foundation's Board Chairman, Mr. Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. and our Vice Chairman, Senator Wil- liam E. Brock. Mr. Chairman, just this past July, the National Academy Foundation held its 9th Annual Institute for Staff Development featuring Labor Secretary Reich via sat- ellite, in your lovely city of Chicago. We appreciated your desire to have joined us and certainly hope we may have the honor of your presence at a future Institute. You'll find additional testimony attached to my opening remarks, including other program information and statistics about NAF. 77-136 0-94-4 94 I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the two distinguished Cabinet Mem- bers, Secretary Reich of the Labor Department and Secretary Riley of Education, on the outstanding work that they are doing in making the school-to-work initiative a primary agenda item at their respectful departments. We applaud the Clinton Ad- ministration s leadership in tackling what I consider the most important crisis fac- ing our nation's economic and education future. Before I make brief remarks about our schcol-to-work initiatives, I would like to introduce Ms. Ellen Randolph Williams, Senior Vice President, Quality & Human Resources, American Express Company, Mr. Richard Graziano, teacher and program director, Academy of Travel & Tourism in New York City, and Ms. Michelle Yhap, a student in the Academy of Travel & Tourism program at Richmond Hill High School, New York City. The National Academy Foundation grew out of a partnership between the Amer- ican Express Company and the New York City Schools some eleven years ago. The program was designed to encourage graduating New York City high school students to enter the rapidly growing financial services industry because of that industry's concern for a lack of qualified workers in New York City. Eecause the program was so successful in New York City, and in such demand from other parts of the country, the National Academy Foundation was established in 1988 by American Express, to encourage partnerships between business and edu- cation with the expressed goal of strengthening the preparedness of the American workforce throughout America. NAF programs are delivered through an Academy format within each high school (school-witnin-a-school) that links business, education, and the community. To date, we have successfully launched partnerships and developed curriculum for Acad- emies of Finance, Travel & Tourism, Public Service and Manufacturing Sciences. The strength of our Academy model is based on the following: 1. Industry validated curriculum regularly reviewed and updated to meet chang- ing industry standards. 2. A comprehensive Business, site based, paid internship component for students. 3. A vital national and local staff development component for Academy teachers. 4. Active local advisory boards for each Academy program, comprised of corporate and business representatives, college partners, local education representatives, par- ents and students. 5. A certificate is provided to each student successfully completing Academy pro- gram requirements, thus guaranteeing skills competence to industry employers. During the past eleven years, since the launching of the first Academy of Finance program in New York City, NAF has received funding from both public and private sources. American Express has contributed in excess of $2,000,000 during each of the past five years, for replication of our Academies in other communities through- out the country. The NAF model was developed to create a qualified entry-level work force. One of the unexpected results, however, has been that nearly all of the students entering the programs graduate from high school, and over 90% of the 4,000 graduates of the various Academies over the past decade have continued on to college and univer- sities throughout the country. Currently, we are in 110 high schools, throughout 21 states, serving over 6,000 students, in 50 cities and counties from Chicago to Miami, and from Hawaii to New York, and most major cities in between. 75% of our students are minority and 63% are female. Over 400 corporations, civic agencies, non-profit organizations and small busi- nesses have provided paid internships valued in excess of $2.7 million thus far in 1993. Over 55 corporate partnerships between NAF business advisory and public schools are presently in effect. Our programs were recently cited in the June 1992 SCANS report; "SCANS in the Schools" as successful curricula models for attaining the national secondary school educational goals for preparing students with necessary work place skills. Other recognition for our programs has come from an independent evaluation by the Academy for Educational Development (AED), the National Diffusion Network (NDN), the Southern Regional Education Board (SRED), the American Federation of Teachers, and other various articles and journals. Because of the success and independent evaluation and validation of the NAF model, industry leaders have recently approached us to develop similar Academy programs in Energy & Environment Studies, Communications, and Health related careers. Also because of success, in the Fall of 1992, NAF was awarded a $1,000,000 grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation to design three unique Academies of Finance in three cities, with anemphasis in Mortgage Banking and Real Estate, Mentoring, and 95 generous scholarship opportunities. The first two Academies opened this Fall in Miami Dade and South Central Los Angeles high schools. The third Academy is scheduled to open in Atlanta in the Fall of 1994. Mr. Chairman, the National Academy Foundation truly endorses and supports the proposed legislation before you, and is eager to see its passage. Thank you for the honor and opportunity to have appeared before the Sub-Committee. I, or any of the folks accompanying me, would be happy to answer any questions you might have. At this time, with your permission, I would like to yield to Ms. Ellen Randolph Williams, Senior Vice President with American Express. Prepared Statement of Ellen Randolph Williams Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich. My name is Ellen Randolph Williams, Senior Vice President, Quality and Human Resources at American Express, a financial and travel services company. In addi- tion, I am the past Chair of the Business Advisory Board of the Academy of Travel and Tourism Program in Phoenix, Arizona and I currently serve on the Board of the Academy in Newark, New Jersey. I am here today to endorse the Academy as a model within the spirit of this proposed School-to- Work Opportunities legislation. I want to tell you why American Express became involved, and why am personally committed to the Academy program. Travel and tourism is the world's largest industry. Its employment needs are enormous. Here in the United States, it is estimated that the industry will employ 24 million people by the year 2010. As an industry, it demands highly skilled peo- ple. American Express has major human resources needs. As important,our business partners — airlines, hotels, car rental companies.restaurants, cruise lines, and others share these needs. Our futures depend on a qualified workforce. Recognizing these needs, and concerned about where those employees would come from, American Express helped create the Academy of Travel and Tourism in 1986 to prepare students for careers in the travel and tourism industry. The program was built on the enormous success of the Academy of Finance. We saw tremendous op- Eortunities for young people in travel and tourism — a true growth industry — and we new the Academy model of industry specific curriculum, specially trained teachers, paid summer internships and hands-on local business involvement worked. We joined forces with the Miami and New York City school systems, along with our travel partners, to launch a national effort which now includes 41 schools in 22 districts, across the country, with an enrollment of over 1,500 students. We often look to Europe for models in education. In this case, however, the Acad- emy of Travel and Tourism has been replicated in Mexico, Brazil, the United King- dom, Ireland, Hong Kong and Hungary. Dr. Dow has given you many structural and programmatic details about the Acad- emies. I want to tell you why the Academy of Travel and Tourism is critically impor- tant to American Express and to our industry. And I want to make a case for why I think it is such an important model for re-engaging our children in their education and preparation for their working lives. The Academies are important For business. You know from the SCANS report and other findings that businesses are increasingly seeking to hire employees with dif- ferent work attitudes and aptitudes than in the past. As changing technology builds competition and sharpens our focus on greater service, our employees must be able to think on their feet and use analytical skills, ingenuity and teamwork to meet our customer's requirements. Our employees have to be creative in working with cus- tomers to understand their needs and to meet or exceed them. The Academies pro- vide industry relevant academic coursework, coupled with real-life work experience and a certificate that proves they have mastered both. The Academies work for students. They are given a chance to learn in the content of real jobs in the real world. The summer internship is often a student's first job and their first paycheck. This helps build their enthusiasm and motivation for their future career success. Academies work for educators, too. Staff training, including experience with travel industry professionals, is a key element of Academies and keeps teachers excited about the program and in touch with the changing skill sets needed for their stu- dents to compete. In my previous assignment with American Express in Phoenix, I was active in business/education partnerships, including the Mayor's Commission on Education Excellence. I am familiar with quite a few programs which may or may not have 96 helped improve urban public schools, but I know the Academy of Travel and Tour- ism works because I've seen it make a difference in the lives of individual kids. Some students enter the program tentatively, with minimal expectations for themselves, but over a year's time they become turned on to school and more impor- tantly, to the potential of the future. In fact, most students tell us that they hadn't previously considered post-secondary education, but as a result of the Program they now wanted to attend college after graduation. Tm also struck by the Academy students' growth in maturity and confidence as the result of their internships at American Express and other businesses. This two month experience really opens their eyes to what they can accomplish and the op- portunities that lie ahead. It also presents employers with a number of ways to add value to the internship through employee mentoring, tutoring and special events. We hire approximately 100 students each summer. 400 other travel service compa- nies also hired interns this past summer. Our employees are enthusiastic about helping young people at this critical point in their lives. American Express employees serve on 13 business advisory boards across the country. In New York, 40 of my associates volunteer each summer to mentor Academy stu- dents during their internships at American Express .Hundreds of other employees In fact, I have an office colleague who was a mentor last summer to Michelle Yhap, a New York City Academy student who is with us today. My colleague says she got as much from the experience as Michelle did — and a new friendship in the bargain. A national school-to-work initiative is important, and it builds on the lessons we've learned in the Academies over the past decade. We know it works. We saw the original Finance model replicated by the Travel and Tourism Academies and now Public Service Academies. We need to be able to share this model as well as others and promote best practices throughout the coun- try. I want to see Academies in every city nationwide^ so children can get a leg up on their careers and a productive future. Thank you. Prepared Statement of Laurel Adler The East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program is a formal consor- tium consisting of seventeen high schools in Eastern Los Angeles County. The Pro- gram works in partnership with over 300 businesses, four community colleges, three state universities and over fifty community and public agencies to provide business based job training, related academic skills instruction, linkages to higher education, job placement and other support services to over 7,000 high school aged students a year. The majority of students served are Hispanic. A large portion ofthe commu- nity experiences a high level of gang activity. Target high schools have extremely high drop out rates, and much of the target community has been identified by the organization Rebuild LA as a neglected area. The model school to work project that our program has been conducting for over seven years has had a documented signifi- cant impact on the high risk population of students described above. The National School to Work Opportunities Act (S. 1361) addresses that essential linkage of school and the workplace which must take place if effective School-to- Work systems are ever to succeed on a large scale in this country. For the most part the bill is well designed. However, we believe there is are some significant short- comings with the manner in which it describes the involvement of business. As cur- rently written the role of business and industry, as well as other community re- sources, is much too limited. The bill describes business involvement in the initial planning and development of School -to -Work programs, but then does not describe any specific business participation in the pre-employment instructional aspect of the program at all. Business involvement does not pick up again until the student re- ceives a job in a particular business at the business' expense. The State of California has allowed for the use of employers as partners in in- struction for many years through educational consortia known as Regional Occupa- tional Programs. The Los Angeles Area Business/Education Partnership Cooperative which is administered through the East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program, is a USDE National Model Demonstration Project in the areas of Tech- Prep and in School-to-Work Transition. One of the unique aspects of this regional partnership program is that it involves business and industry throughout every step of planning, curriculum and program development, instruction, evaluation and job placement. Businesses actually donate space at their worksites and individual staff time to assist students in learning and/or reinforcing specific job skills that are part of the training curriculum. If the bill limits worksite involvement merely to students 97 in the program who are currently working it will not tap into the many other effec- tive ways in which business can be a partner with education. It is not realistic to expect that all businesses will be able to afford to hire a student when so many of them are currently struggling to keep afloat. However, it has been our experience that business persons and other member of the community want very much to be involved with education and are willing to volunteer valuable services that provide students who are still in the classroom a realistic view of the working world. These services include on-site employment training of students. Our own demonstration project utilizes over 500 businesses a year to provide such services as business based class room sites, business mentors, and curriculum development — all on a purely voluntary basis. In California, over 20,000 businesses a year throughout the state assist with the actual instruction of students. There are very few of these types of transitional kinds of activities described in the bill that can link the student with the workplace while he or she is still in the "school-based" training phase. Our data indicate that students, including at-risk stu- dents who go through the type of School-to-Work transition program that involves direct instructional experiences with businesses and business people are more likely to graduate from high school, get better grades, are more likely to be employed, more likely to receive promotions and more likely to go on to post secondary edu- cation than students from their same high schools who did not go through a similar business/education partnership type of training program. This National Demonstra- tion Project has been collecting follow-up data on project student since 1987 with a current long-term student data base of over 2000 students. The University of Cali- fornia at Riverside conducts the statistical analysis to determine whether or not the program produces significant results. The students in this program were given busi- ness mentors prior to their being employed, engaged in numerous job shadowing ac- tivities as part of their instruction, received part of their "school-based" training in a business where business staff became co-teachers with the public school job train- ing teacher, were taught curriculum which was developed in concert with business, and their performance was evaluated by business as part of their instructional grade. All of this occurred before the student was employed and while he or she was enrolled in what the bill refers to as "school based learning. The way the bill is currently written there is little transitional involvement of business in the class- room learning component. The involvement of business consists primarily of: "planning and developing" of School-to-Work programs, but says little about involvement in the actual implemen- tation of the pre-employment instructional component. Businesses and business staff involvements are then described in detail at the employment end of the proc- ess, where they are to be used as workplace instruction. All of this is fine, but it is occurring too late. There is no reason why business individuals cannot be mentors while the student is still in school and needs some realistic incentive for finishing the program. There is no reason why the workplace as a dynamic instructional set- ting needs to be held up until after the student is employed, and there is no reason why employers cannot assist in teaching employment competencies prior to the stu- dent finding employment. The data derived from this national demonstration project indicated that by moving all of these activities up into the instructional "school- based" phase, these context based learning experiences can result in more students completing the program and being employed than if they were not used as an inte- gral part of instruction. Four years of program follow-up using control groups as a basis of comparison demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing business and industry in a much broader role than is currently described. The safeguards listed in section 504 of the bill would prevent the misuse or exploitation of students receiving part of their "school- based" instruction in the workplace. Even stronger safeguards could be written into the bill if there are misgivings about using business prior to actual employment. California has allowed such instructional components for over fifteen years and the attached data reinforce the contention that such programs can have significant im- pact. The California regulations are specifically written to eliminate any exploitation or misuse of students while in the workplace. These regulations govern both paid and unpaid types of experiences. In addition, labor unions and their apprenticeship f)rograms play a major role in the development and implementation of this curricu- um and its subsequent linkage with apprenticeships and employment. We would certainly not want the bill to eliminate our ability to produce the quality programs which we are already operating. It is unclear as written whether or not such activi- ties would actually be prohibited. However, even if we were not prohibited from keeping our business and community partners as active educators, we believe that such models should be encouraged in the actual language of the bill. 98 Additionally, as the bill is currently written, there is little incentive for employers to spend their limited funds on hiring students. This is particularly true for small businesses. The bill needs to describe more business incentives for hiring students. For example, without adding any dollars to the bill, a paragraph describing the use of Targeted Jobs Tax Credits with potential employers will at least remind schools to make use of this already existing incentive as a component of their School-to- Work programs. Prepared Statement of Robert T. Jones Mr. Chairmen, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the sub-com- mittee on the subject of creating a national school to work transition system. The establishment of such a system is absolutely essential if the young people of tomor- row are to achieve the ultimate American dream of having the option of entering college, attending technical school, or, if they choose to go to work, being viewed as a valued entry level employee in tomorrow's industries. First Mr. Chairmen, let me congratulate both Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich for their aggressive leadership in the area of workforce preparation and develop- ment. The primary ingredients of these proposals are: (1) the establishment of edu- cation achievement standards for secondary school completers, (2) a national school to work system, (3) the development of recognized work place skill standards and certificates, and (4) a universal worker readjustment system. While these proposals should be viewed together and each is important in ensuring the preparation and security of the American workforce, my comments today are limited to S. 1316, the School to Work Opportunity Act. In S. 1316 the administration has provided a sound basis for building a School to Work program. It includes the basic components of work-based learning, edu- cation achievement, work experience, and counseling and technical assistance. My comments today are intended to urge the committee to act on a School to Work Bill and to highlight several additions that would improve S. 1316. At the outset, it is imperative to establish the broad framework and principals under which School to Work legislation should be considered. I believe that principal is that a School to Work system should be viewed, first and foremost as an edu- cation program. It's primary purpose is to keep young people in school who might normally drop out, to reach education achievement standards through a more prac- tical curriculum, and to obtain the necessary work place skills for successful entry level employment. It should be viewed as an alternative modality for successful sec- ondary school achievement; one of several which should be built into the school sys- tem if our objective is to bring each and every student up to the required standards before they graduate or dropout. This means that a School to Work system is not just another work readiness pro- gram, not tracking, not another co-op education program, and not just another ver- sion of Vocational Education. As you consider this legislation, in spite of all the par- ticulars, you should constantly examine this overall propose and ensure that the standards which are set, ensure these outcomes. If we allow the desire for flexibility and political support to diminish this purpose we will have let down both young peo- ple and the employers who desperately need this system. Therefore the bill should spell out clear standards that must be met if the program is to qualify as a School to Work program under this legislation. Second, the legislation should require a formal COMPACT between parent, stu- dent, school, and employer. The COMPACT should contain the expectations of each partner; time frames, attendance, training and education standards, what outcomes are expected, and what will happen if any of the partners fails to live up to their commitment. Third, The Bill should clearly spell out a set of student responsibilities. These should include the agreement to stay in school, maintain attendance, minimum aca- demic achievement, and behavior expectations both at school and the work place. Fourth, the section on school expectations should include clear language on high school completion as well as achievement of recognized competencies. The whole purpose of this program is to improve overall education achievement, not just work reaainess skills. It is, however, problematic to go so far as mandating "career ma- jors" in the 11th grade. Certainly contextual learning opportunities should be en- couraged and even incented through the grant process, but developing career majors is difficult if not impossible for the school system and they lead to arguments of tracking. Fifth, employer expectations should include language relating to growth occupa- tions and expectations of hiring. There should not be a mandate to rrire, but there should be a minimum standara excluding employers that demonstrate a consistent 99 pattern of none hire. Some standard for occupational relevance and a preclusion of unskilled, low wage, out-dated occupations should be included. Sixth, the legislation should include some provision for third party oversight and quality control. Seventh, the legislation should include a cross reference to the National Voluntary Occupational Standards Legislation (Sec. 4 America 2000). Any formally approved school to work program in an occupational area that has certified standards must include relevant educational and work place competencies required by the basic level of the occupational skill standard or certificate. Mr Chairmen, while I have not commented on the delivery or funding mecha- nisms in the legislation, I would like to address the long term funding for such a program. Each year we spend BILLIONS of dollars on secondary education and yet more billions on short term programs designed to make up for the failures of that system. Rather than setting up new programs and separate funding for School to Work programs, it is time to begin to direct current funding sources toward use in this type of alternative education system. We can reach more students, more effec- tively, at less expense, with much greater impact. Funds in JTPA, JOBS, Voc Ed, General Ed, Chapter I, and a myriad of other programs should be refocused within the school system but in alternative systems, such as School to Work, which better meet the needs and expectations of the young people of America. In closing, let me state that this bill sets the proper standard for federal leader- ship in establishing a school to work system. It does not require a new federal pro- gram with set aside funding, but a suggests a fundamental shift in the way current funds are spent and what standards are achieved. In such a model the legislation must spell out the principals, standards, and expectations very clearly. The local communities must have maximum flexibility to designing and delivering these pro- grams, but they must adhere to high standards set by the legislation bill. Mr. Chairmen, flexibility can not become an excuse for failure to provide nec- essary services to young people in our school system. Such a failure means certain discrimination in work place that does not respect low skills. This concludes my prepared remarks, I thank you and the members of the sub- committee for your interest in this important subject, and I would be pleased to ad- dress any questions you may have at this time. Prepared Statement of Linda G. Morra Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our recent work reviewing the status of comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies at the state leveL We believe our work can pro- vide some perspective as the Committee considers S. 1361, the School -to-Work Op- portunities Act of 1993, which is designed to encourage the development of school- to-work systems in all states. As currently drafted, the proposed legislation includes provisions that would authorize development grants to support state efforts in de- signing school-to-work transition strategies, implementation grants for states ready to begin operation of their strategies, and support for some grants to local commu- nities. Our testimony is based on our recent report, Transition From School to Work: States Are Developing New Strategies to Prepare Students for Jobs, (GAO/HRD-93- 139, Sep. 7, 1993), prepared at the request of the Joint Economic Committee, on comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies at the state level in the United States. To arrive at the key components of a comprehensive school-to-work transi- tion strategy, we reviewed the literature in the field of school-to-work transition and consulted with experts. To determine how many states have adopted the compo- nents of comprehensive strategies, we conducted a telephone survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We also visited states and school districts we found that were implementing comprehensive strategies to gain an understanding about how state ana local officials are implementing the strategies. In brief, our analysis showed that, even though American high schools direct most of theiz resources toward preparing students for college, few incoming high school freshmen — about 15 percent — «o on to graduate and then obtain a 4-year college de- gree within 6 years of high school graduation. A substantial number of the remain- ing 85 percent wander between different educational and employment experiences, many seemingly ill prepared for the workplace, i JSee A Nation At Risk, The National Commission on Excellence in Education (Washington, D.C.: 1983); National Center for Education and the Economy, the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! (Washington, D.C.: 1990); Continued 100 Accordingly, some states are developing comprehensive school-to-work transition strategies to better prepare high school students for workplace requirements. While no state had fully implemented such a strategy at the time of our survey, four states — Florida, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin — have enacted statutory provi- sions requiring state officials to develop and implement these strategies. The four states are now undertaking actions on the following, interrelated components of a comprehensive school-to-work transition strategy: processes for developing academic and occupational competencies, * career education and development, extensive links between school systems and employers, and meaningful workplace experiences. These four components, which experts have identified as necessary for a com- prehensive strategy, are addressed in the three basic program components that would be required by S. 1361, namely, 1) work -based learning, (2) school-based learning, and (3) connecting activities.3 We support the direction taken by this bill to establish a national framework for the development of school-to-work opportuni- ties systems in all states to facilitate youths' transition from school to work. We be- lieve, however, that overcoming the obstacles will require much effort at the state and local levels. Officials and others in the four states that we visited estimated that their school-to-work transition strategies will not be fully implemented before the year 2000. BACKGROUND The inadequate preparation of young workers has both individual and social costs. The unprepared individual forgoes considerable earnings over a lifetime while con- tributing to lagging national productivity growth and increasing social welfare costs. Recent studies on education and economic competitiveness,4 including our pre- vious work on the subject,5 have concluded that the goals of secondary schools should Include having all youth possess good academic skills, marketable occupa- tional skills, and appropriate workplace hehaviors. We reported that the United States is lagging benina some of its primary international economic competitors — Japan, the former West Germany, Sweden, and England — in having students ac- quire academic and occupational skills that employers need and guiding students' transition from school to work. These foreign countries, unlike the United States, have national policies that emphasize preparing youth for employment. Specific ap- proaches vary by country, but typically schools and employers work together to fa- cilitate youths' work force entry. In Japan, for example, high school seniors get jobs almost exclusively through school-employer linkages, with employers basing hiring decisions on schools' recommendations. In the former West Germany, about two- thirds of all youth participate in apprenticeships. The United States' secondary education system, on the other hand, has evolved into a multitrack system that, according to many experts, increasingly does not serve youth effectively. In the past, even though many youth in the United States hadfew skills and limited language and computation skills, a substantial number of youth could strive for and eventually get entry-level positions in semiskilled, higher Gene Bottoms, et al., Making High Schools Work (Atlanta: 1992); Paul Cteterman and Maria Ianozzi, Youth Apprenticeships and School- to- Work Transition: Current Knowledge and Legisla- tive Strategy, National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce (Philadelphia: 1993). 'Identifying "processes for developing academic and occupational competencies" as a compo- nent of a comprehensive school-to-work transition strategy does not mean that education reform serves only school-to-work transition goals. Indeed, one could view education reform as an um- brella concept encompassing many goals, including improved school-to-work transition. For a discussion of education reform efforts in the United States, see our report, SyBtemwide Edu- cation Reform: Federal Leadership Could Facilitate District- Level EfTorts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993). For a discussion of skill standards and certification programs to provide potential em- ployers with assurances that applicants possess certain skills or attributes specifically related to their field of endeavor, see our report, Skill Standards: Experience in Certification Systems Shows Industry Involvement to Be Key (GAO/HRD-93-90, May 18,1993). 3The three basic components listed in S. 1361 encompass the four components identified by experts in a comprehensive strategy as follows: the work-based learning component in S. 1361 encompasses meaningful workplace experiences (our fourth component), the school-based learn- ing component includes career education and development (our second component) and processes for developing academic and occupational competencies (our first component), and the connect- ing activities include extensive links between school systems and employere (our third compo- nent). ge|es CA - broad preparation lor varied health occupations 3. Henlth and Blosdence Academy, Oakland Technical IIS. Oakland CA -broad preparation lor varied health occupations A. Socorro High School lor tha Health Prolesslons, Socorto HS, El Paso TX - broad preparation lor varied health occupations Occupational/ Academic Cluster Programs 5 Crnter HS, Central Point OH • business, sodnl services, ecology schools within- a school 8. Dauphin County Technlcil ScIkkjI. Harrlshurg PA - academic courses tied to vocational training shops 7. noosevelt Renaissance 2000. Roosevelt HS. Portland OH - career exploration, six occupational pathways Restructured Vocational Education Programs 9 Rlndge School o( Tedinlcal Arts. Cambridge MA - Integrated aradernlcA'OcaHonal education, school based enterprise 9. Prolesslonal and Career Education. Poudre R-1 School Olstrfct, Fort Collins CO - career exploration, varied briel Internships Tech Prop Programs 10. Pickens County School District. Eastey SC - elective* In applied academics 11. Ben Davis High School. Wayne Township (Indianapolis) IN- sequence of applied academic courses, teacher-student dusters Youth Apprenticeship Programs 12 Fox CIMos PrinUng Youth Apprenticeship. Appleton Wl - lodirlcal and |ob sklBs training In printing 13 Metropolitan Vocational Cenler Little Rock AH - tedinlcal and |ob skills In training In health, heatlngAyenDllallon 14 Pickens County Sclwl Dlstik-I. Easley SC - technical and|ob skills training In electronics 15 CradmensMp 2000, Tulsa OK • tedinlcal end |oh skills In melalworklng 16 West Bend Printing Youth Apprenticeship. West Bend Wl - technical and job skUs training In printing Prepared Statement of William H. Kolberg Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. I am William Kolberg, President of the National Alliance of Business. I want to commend you for taking the initiative in this hearing to examine impor- tant issues that will enable the United States to develop a system of school-to-work transition assistance. You demonstrated your leadership on this issue by introduc- ing the Career Pathways Act earlier this year. I am pleased that the Administration and the Congress are finally giving this per- sistent gap in our workforce preparation system the attention it deserves. The coop- erative and openly consultative process embraced by the Departments of Labor and 112 Education has been impressive during the development of this legislation. The pro- posal, as a result, is a better product for beginning congressional deliberations. The National Alliance of Business endorses the Administration's school -to- work initiative. We will continue to make some recommendations throughout the legisla- tive process to improve the details of specific provisions, especially those related to business participation, but the Alliance will support enactment of such a bill. I served as a member of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce which, in its 1990 report America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!, noted that America may have the worst school-to-work transition system of any advanced in- dustrial country. Unlike virtually all of our leading competitors, we have no national system capable of setting high academic and occupational standards for all youth or of assessing their achievement against those standards. The Congress can lay the foundation for such a system if the development of academic and occupational standards as proposed under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act is approved with the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. As a result of visiting and studying other nation's systems, I firmly believe that establishing a deliberate, coordinated school-to-work system in this country is criti- cal to our future economic success. Change in the modem workplace is occurring as rapidly as the expansion of knowledge. High performance work places require radi- cally new skills, as was shown by the Secretary's Commission on Necessary Skills. An effective system can, over time, reform secondary education, provide skills to youth that will last for a lifetime of learning in a competitive environment, and help reduce the number of school dropouts that might otherwise occur if those individ- uals do not see practical application of academic skills to life and work. I will not spend time today stating the case economically or socially for establish- ing a school-to-work transition system. You will have other expert witnesses to add that perspective. I would like to focus on the practical side of implementing a sys- tem that relies uniquely and importantly on the active involvement of employers. My comments are drawn from the work the Alliance has done with employers al- ready involved in school-to-work programs. Business Involvement Over the past four years, the Alliance has developed model school-to-work pro- grams with Sears, Motorola, Bank of America, and Kodak to examine how employ- ers could develop a work-based learning component which is coordinated closely with a secondary school curriculum. We have gathered a wealth of information from discussions with hundreds of employers experimenting with school-to-work pro- grams. In the past 18 months, we studied, wrote about, and discussed the trends and applications of school-to-work models which could help establish the framework for building such a system in the United States. The Alliance established the Busi- ness Center for Youth Apprenticeship this Spring to link employers who are already involved in youth apprenticeships and to share their experience with other employ- ers interested in designing programs in their communities. Through the Center's activities, the Alliance convened 15 employers who are par- ticipating in some of the best work -based learning models, and we asked them what motivated their companies to participate in youth apprenticeship programs, what re- sources they contributed, what were the barriers they encountered and measures used to overcome them, and finally what would be needed in federal legislation to bring youth apprenticeship to scale in this country by getting employers involved. The written proceedings of that discussion provide insightful advice that the Sub- committee might find useful in designing legislation, and I will make copies avail- able to members and staff. [This publication is entitled, Youth Apprenticeship: Busi- ness Incentives, Problems and Solutions.] These employers are deeply concerned about the quality of our country's workforce. These are businesses that have chosen not to wait around for the "prov- en" solution, or a legislative model. They are taking a business approach similar to the way they would deal with a production issue. They are starting with a promis- ing model and are planning to refine and improve it as they go along. These employ- ers felt that the lessons learned from past efforts could help reduce start-up tune for those employers now just beginning to adopt school-to-work models. While there are a variety of methods currently being used to improve the transi- tion of young people from school to work, our interests focus on the use of a new youth apprenticeship model which blends classroom and work -based learning experi- ences. What makes school-to-work transition assistance unique under this bill is the work-based component of structured on-the-job learning. This model enables stu- dents to be educated in two places, their schools and the workplace, in effect making the workplace an extension of schooling. School-to-work programs are rooted in the 113 work place and must have employer involvement. It is critically important that leg- islation be designed to engage employers in the enterprise, not discourage them. Business has been participating in advisory boards for many years, yet schools seem to teach for the ^old" workplace. New and rapidly changing workplace require- ments will demand deep changes in the schools. The innovation of this school-to- work model is that the boundaries between schools and the workplace are blurred. By having students in the actual worksite, business can have a direct impact on the teaching of future workers. By teaming business and schools together, curricula can better reflect real world challenges. We have found that it is not enough to simulate the workplace in the classroom, through activities designed by teachers. And, on the other hand, you can't just throw youth into the worksite without direction and guid- ance. The youth apprenticeship model we advocate builds upon the best examples of Tech-Prep, career academies, cooperative education, and vocational education. The model moves beyond just building a bridge and actually integrates classroom and worksite learning. The motivation of business leaders to participate in youth apprenticeship will vary. The primary motivation is a conviction that youth apprenticeship is an effec- tive tool for developing skilled employees, either for themselves or for the good of the local society. Effective school-to-work partnerships can also help to restructure public education. . I am emphasizing the employer role in this initiative because realistically it can only succeed and grew in depth and scale if employers become involved. Half of the equation is not there if you do not attract employers to voluntarily participate in the earliest stages of program design and development, and to eventually participate in large numbers. Importance of Intermediary Organizations The importance of intermediary organizations in bridging the gap between schools and business should not be underestimated. If the funds are sent primarily through the school systems, then businesses will perceive this as just another government program. If intermediary organizations that have business and community leader- ship are funded, then the credibility of school -to- work initiatives and planning pro- cedures are enhanced because they include a business perspective. The employers we talked to recommended that government play the primary role in developing the infrastructure of youth apprenticeship. They define this infrastruc- ture as: investment in mentor training; technical assistance to both schools and businesses; development, evaluation and improvement of classroom-based and work -based curricula; and the involvement of intermediaries that could provide technical expertise and brokering. Employers have found that developing this foundation is both costly and time con- suming, but critically important to the success of this initiative. The government can play an important role in convening partners, highlighting successes, assuring technical assistance, and undertaking a campaign to engage more businesses. Employers active in current programs, however, strongly advise that red tape involved with this government support be minimized. If receiving the funds is too complicated, involves excessive paperwork, or has strings attached, businesses will not become involved. Federal Support for Business Many employers actively involved in school-to-work programs feel that smaller firms, which make up the majority of those currently involved with the youth ap- prenticeship movement, would benefit from some level of federal support. The Alli- ance's Business Center for Youth Apprenticeship has identified a network of about 200 businesses currently operating youth apprenticeship programs. Over half of all the employers are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. They are held together largely by intermediary organizations which help fund some of the up-front costs that, the small businesses could not bear otherwise. Examples of the types of interim organizations providing these services are: the Chamber of Commerce in Tulsa; the Private Industry Council in Boston; Cornell University in New York; and the Technical College in Maine. Small businesses can't easily commit to the start- up activities which are so costly, such as structuring the work -based learning com- ponent, informing the school-based curricula, and general program development. These 200 businesses employ about 1,500 students which is impressive given the 114 novelty of youth apprenticeship. But, it illustrates how big the challenge is to bring the school-to-work initiative up to scale nationwide. The employers involved in youth apprenticeship also think that federal support would help bring other small businesses into the movement. The employers believe that having firms be responsible for the wages of apprentices is important for ensur- ing a company's genuine investment in the program. If Firms are responsible for paying apprentices, employers feel that these businesses would assign effective su- pervisors to monitor and train the apprentices. Some employers feel that govern- ment supporting the costs incurred from supervisors working on program planning and front-line workers acting as mentors is more important than government subsi- dizing the wages of the youth apprentices. At the same time, employers think that government assistance in covering the costs of mentors supervising the apprentices could be an important incentive for encouraging firms, particularly small and mid- sired businesses, to become involved in youth apprenticeship programs. Financial Incentives. In some cases, direct financial incentives may help to con- vince otherwise hesitant employers to participate. It is hoped that many employers will get involved when they are convinced that apprenticeship is a durable, reliable method of getting highly competent employees with a minimum of government red tape. A limited incentive like the one proposed by the Administration to expand the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit would be a nelpful tool. I know that this issue would not be part of a bill under your Committee's jurisdiction, but the Administration may propose again, as it did under the Budget Reconciliation bill, that participants in certified school-to-work programs be included as a new category of eligible individ- uals under the Targetecf jobs Tax Credit program. This would provide a tax credit equal to 40% of the first $3,000 in wages paid to a qualified youth for a maximum of $1,200. This approach minimizes paperwork (the credit is processed during the normal filing of tax returns) and is relatively automatic and sell-enforces. A surprising number of employers are interested in getting more information about school-to-work programs once they hear about them. The response we received from a recent insert on youth apprenticeship in Fortune magazine generated over 400 requests from companies asking to be part of our network so that they can re- ceive more information on youth apprenticeship. This response also suggests that the government will need to undertake an information campaign directed at employ- ers in addition to enacting legislation. Generating large scale corporate commitment to hiring students under this program will, I have no doubt, be a long process. There is no quick fix to thisproblem. Other Incentives. The legislation should be clear about what incentives are avail- able to employers for other types of help that would cover the extra costs of staff training, mentoring, and supervision. Incentives can be in the form of intermediary help with students making the transition to employment. For example, some suc- cessful programs provide a readily accessible counselor for the new employee to help with normal adjustments in the work place, especially for individuals with little work history. Students often need someone they can confide in, or someone they are comfortable with to ask basic questions, which might not normally be anticipated in the work place, and someone from whom students can get general emotional sup- port. Employers would highly value this type of intermediary who could help with family and personal adjustments, building self-esteem, dealing with pressures of work place demands, managing finances, transportation, and other issues which the employer is not well equipped to handle. Build a System Not a Program I take Administration officials at their word and believe that this legislative framework is not intended to be yet another federal program and can instead lever- age significant changes in the use of existing school and training program funds. Various elements for designing and operating successful school-to-work programs al- ready exist in other state and federal programs. These programs can be revised to meet the standards and goals of youth apprenticeship models. The goal of any fed- eral legislation should be to help build the capacity for school-to-work transition sys- tems and to erect resources in the public and private sectors to support it. The legis- lation should reward states and localities that realign programs toward school-to- work activities. The system that needs to be created is far beyond the reach of any single pro- gram. Federal funds under this bill should be used for technical assistance, re- search, teacher training, curricula and assessment development, and coalition build- ing all of which are necessary to build the footing and capacity for local partner- ships. This concept of a "system" is often difficult to explain. If we look at the range of assistance provided to college-bound youth, we can gain insight into what is needed 115 for an effective school-to-work transition system. Current education resources have been collected over tune to provide an effective "school-to-college" transition system. Secondary school curricula have been designed to meet expectations for college prep- aration, standards have been developed for college admission, testing systems are established for admissions, guidance and counseling services are geared predomi- nantly toward college applications ad placements, and the federal government pro- vides billions of dollars for student grants and loans. These separate activities rep- resent a "system" that is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. In the same way, school- to-work transition can evolve over time to encompass and redirect many aspects of existing programs, resources, and institutions into a system. One of the most important components of the Administration's bill that can assure continuation of school-to-work systems, after the initial investment to set up the framework, is the authority for waivers over how other program funds can be used and coordinated for these purposes. These waiver provisions need to be consistent across other pending initiatives like the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Conclusion The Congress faces a full agenda with an impressive array of initiatives that can have a major impact on education and workforce quality. The list includes education reform under the Goals 2000 Act, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, the National Competitiveness Act, and other initiatives for dislocated workers and welfare reform. The key for business is that these initiatives be coordinated and rationalized so that the delivery of education and training at the local level can be comprehensive and tailored stra- tegically to local needs. Both the Administration and the Congress appear willing to think differently and with more urgency about new approaches to preparing citizens for the modem work place. Developing public policy related to the work force must begin with a partner- ship that involves employers in shaping the strategies. Business is also thinking dif- ferently about these issues. I chair an informal Coalition of about 12 national business organizations which calls itself the Business Coalition for Workforce Development. The Coalition is com- posed of organizations like The Business Roundtable, American Business Con- ference, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Society for Training and Develop- ment, Black Business Council, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Hispanic Chamber, Committee for Economic Development, and a number of industry-specific associations. School -to -work transition, occupational skill standards, dislocated worker assist- ance, and integrated service delivery under a workforce investment system are areas of critical interest to these organizations individually and in common as a Co- alition. We have not yet developed consensus around a set of policy recommenda- tions on school-to-work, but we have discussed it a great deal and shared informa- tion about successful experiments. We will certainly be coming to you with more de- tailed comments as the legislative process unfolds. What is remarkable about this Coalition is the compelling interest in workforce development issues, and the re- newed commitment to working in partnership with the government on long-term strategies that will improve workforce quality and American competitiveness. Business knows that without a systemic policy of providing continual improve- ment and expansion of workforce skills, we will not keep up with our economic com- petitors who are doing just that, and our general standard of living will decline. The way we develop the educational and technical workplace skills, as a society, will be more important than ever in the next decade. I can say that the Alliance is commit- ted to working closely with the Congress and the Administration to help shape an effective workforce investment strategy that can enhance our competitive success and our future economic security. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Prepared Statement of Rudy Oswald I appreciate this opportunity to share the views of the AFL-CIO on S. 1361, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you for your longstanding concern and your steady leadership on youth career path- ways which has helped lay the foundation for this legislation. The AFL-CIO believes this bill is a significant step forward in helping America's youth obtain the skills they need to reach their full potential. Far too many of our young people today — including many high school and even some college graduates— do not possess adequate reading, writing, and math skills. 116 Rebuilding America's primary and secondary education system is the single most important thing the government can do to better prepare all our young people for jobs in a high skill, nigh wage economy. This legislation offers us an opportunity to find new ways to raise the overall educational achievement of our students and can help them acquire a strong foundation of skills needed for a lifetime of continu- ous learning. While this legislation will benefit all students, it holds particular promise for our nation's vocational education students. It aims to break down the walls which too frequently divide academic from vocational education, a goal it shares with the Per- kins Act of 1990. S. 1361 can help us provide our vocational education students with a quality education, rather than the separate but unequal preparation too many re- ceive today. A structured program of school-to-work should lead to a high school diploma based on high standards, and, as appropriate, a post-secondary credential or certifi- cate showing that a skill level has been achieved. We need to provide learning op- portunities for students — not subsidies for employers. Workers compensation laws, and state and federal health and safety laws should apply to all school-to-work students. S. 1361 establishes a national framework for developing School-to-Work Opportu- nities systems in every state. While it allows and encourages states to be creative and innovative, it also requires states to establish broad-based partnerships involv- ing government, business, labor, and secondary and postsecondary educational insti- tutions. The ultimate success of this bill rests on the effectiveness of these partnerships. It is our experience that training programs are successful where there is full in- volvement of workers. If government and business are serious about wanting to build a first class workforce, they need American workers on their side. The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions are committed to participating as full part- ners in this new effort. Active union support is the key to the success of school-to- work systems among our competitor nations, just as active union participation is the key to the most exemplary apprenticeship and training programs in our own coun- try. We are pleased that S. 1361 requires that labor organizations be included in all local partnerships. I would like to spend a few minutes highlighting several other features of S. 1361 which we consider especially noteworthy. First, we support the bill's requirement that work-based and classroom learning activities be combined and connected in ways which lead to both a high school di- ploma and a credential recognized by industry. We join parents, teachers, and em- ployers in rejecting any program which narrows — rather than expands — the future options of students who choose to participate. We must be able to assure students that if they successfully complete these programs, they will be ready to continue their learning both in a job — with a career ladder — and in a postsecondary class- room. Successful students should be able to pursue either of these options imme- diately, or years after they finish the program. Program completion should represent only the first step of learning over a lifetime. Second, we are pleased by several of the guidelines that will govern program ac- tivities in actual workplaces. Many of our unions, especially those with registered apprenticeship programs, know the value of 'learning by doing." But our decades of experience training workers also tell us that for real learning to occur, activities in the workplace must be thoughtfully designed and structured. We therefore sup- port the requirement that the proposed training and experiences on the job must be planned so that students master progressively higher skills; that experienced workers serve as mentors for students on the job; and that the learning content is broad and transferable beyond a specific worksite or employer. Third, we support the requirement that students must be paid while engaged in learning activities which are work-based. We also agree that funds under this bill should not be expended to pay for student wages. We are confident that this ap- proach will enhance — not detract from — program quality for the following reasons: Participating students will automatically receive the same legal protections on the job enjoyed by other workers. The student will be a paid employee of the participating employer. He or she will be covered by OSHA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Workers Compensation, and other laws. By requiring students to be paid, you will give employers an incentive to in- vest the necessary time and effort required to make education and training a meaningful part of a student's time on the job. Finally, we are pleased by the safeguards provided under Sections 503 and 504, which prohibit any negative impact on existing workers and explicitly require com- 117 pliance with existing laws on occupational safety and health, labor standards, and civil rights. These safeguards will help ensure that participating students are placed in workplace environments which are truly conducive to their learning and where they are welcome. An effective mentoring program for students will be impossible in those workplaces where the adult workers are uncertain about their own welfare and future. Let me close with a few recommendations about how two specific aspects of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 should be further strengthened. First, as I stated earlier, the success of S. 1361 in building a new national system of school -to- work rests on building and sustaining effective partnerships involving government, schools and industry, including labor. For this reason, we urge that S. 1361 be amended to give labor organizations a full and equal role in the state devel- opment grants process. Currently, in its application for a development grant, a state is required to describe how it will "enlist the active and continued participation in the planning and development of the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities sys- tem of employers and other interested parties such as . . . labor organizations ..." . . We urge the committee to revise Title H, Section 202(bX3) to correct this unbal- ance. A state should be required to describe how it plans to enlist the active and continued participation of organized labor as well as employers. The planning and development phase at the state level is critically important. It must build a genuine Bartnership involving employers and unions from the beginning, or it will falter. Unequal partnerships do not work. Mandating organized labor's involvement in the state development grants process will strengthen the program in several ways. Unions can help guide the state to focus on creating and expanding learning opportunities in those industries and occu- pations where training and formal apprenticeship programs are lacking, while avoiding wasteful duplication of programs. Through our collective bargaining rela- tionships, we enjoy better access to the corporate decisionmakers. Finally, our struc- ture of union officers, stewards, and committees can provide vital support to the work -based activities envisioned in S. 1361, particularly workplace mentoring. The second aspect of S. 1361 which we believe would benefit from further refine- ment concerns the educational objectives of the bill, especially the work -based learn- ing component. This program must help students acquire the strongest foundation of skills which will place no limits to their continued learning, career advancement or career changes. The framework guiding the work-based learning component must be carefully drawn to stress the development of broadly transferable skills, rather than narrow skills relevant to a specific employer only. For this reason, we urge the committee to revise Title I, Section 102(5) so that it concurs with language of the Perkins Act of 1990. Rather than requiring "broad instruction in a variety of elements of an in- dustry," S. 1361 should provide students with "strong experience in and understand- ing of all aspects of industry." Among educators, "all aspects" has been defined to include labor issues among several topics we consider important to the education of all workers. They include skills and knowledge which we hope will become only more important in a future high skill, high wage economy. In addition, an effective work-based learning component must take into account the rules and procedures established for each participating workplace. For this rea- son, we urge the committee to include an additional paragraph in Section 102 which would require that a workbased learning component comply with written personnel policies and collective bargaining agreements where applicable. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these refinements would strengthen this important bill. Our members and their children need the kind of national system which is being proposed, a system which we hope will lead to a workforce ready for any present and future challenge. 118 AFL-CIO GUIDELINES ON SKILL TRAINING AND SCIIOOL-TCX-WORK TRANSITION IN TUE 1990S AND BEYOND The American workforce today Is confronted with the enormous challenge of remaining competitive in the face of increasing global competition and enormous technological change. If the nation is to meet this challenge, it must transform its workforce into a legion of highly educated, trained and skilled workers. The debate over how to achieve this goal must center on what has succeeded, not on what has failed In the past. Expansion of that success across every sector of society must concentrate on the education, training and skills needed in the world. But training alone is not the answer. The government needs to pursue a full employment strategy, so that there are job opportunities at the end of the training. While there are no easy answers, a few key points are certain. The country can build on and improve existing government- sponsored training programs, but it cannot depend upon public training efforts alone. With the rapid growth in the number of workers needing assistance, the private sector should be required to do substantially more to expand skills training for all workers, whether they are currently employed, displaced or first-time entrants Into the job market. Labor Participation Full and continuing labor participation, labor involvement, and labor input are crucial to all training related areas. The participation of workers and their representatives makes for better quality in work-related education, training and skill standards. In addition, such participation is vital because workers are those most deeply affected by the results of training and setting of skill standards. If American government and business are serious about wanting to build a world class workforce, they need American workers on their side. Workers must have a voice in the development of training programs, and they must feel that the training will benefit them in some measurable way. SCHOOL-TO-WORK Rebuilding America's primary and secondary education system is the single most important thing government can do for both the business community and the next generation of workers. The basic academic and skill levels of American workers and youth must be raised if they are to master the complex technology of the modern workplace. President Clinton's economic plan is a good start toward building an education and training system that can meet this challenge. The AFL-CIO supports initiatives to help students to prepare for work while they are still In school, as long as these programs do not interfere with basic academic needs. School to-work transition programs should include safeguards to protect broad-based educational goals, such as linking student participation to academic achievement. A structured program should lead at a minimum to a high school diploma based on high standards and, as appropriate, a post- secondary credential or a certificate indicating a level of occupational skill has been achieved. It should provide learning opportunities for students with specified measurable goals — not subsidies for employers. Moreover, workers' compensation laws and state and federal health and safety laws should apply to all school-to-work programs. Young people should not be placed in any occupation that is hazardous, nor should their work be allowed to interfere with their normal school studies. Successful school-to-work training programs exist today in various registered joint apprenticeship programs, particularly in 119 the organized building trades. These programs work well and provide the skills needed In construction and other apprenticeable trades. New government- sponsored Initiatives in construction would only undermine the success of these existing programs. In addition, school-to-work programs should be prevented from displacing any currently employed workers, including those on strike or other legitimate leave, and from subsidizing employers for training they would normally provide. In creating new training programs, government should look to the existing reservoir of knowledge and experience, such as the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, state apprenticeship councils, state government labor officials and state training directors. Any effort to create comprehensive training and education legislation should Include consultation with these experts and those In Industry and labor who are most closely aligned with the occupations. School to-work programs that sre predominantly classroom-based should come under the purview of the U.S. Department of Education. Programs that are predominantly based in the workplace should be the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor and state labor agencies. The two federal departments should then make every effort to better coordinate their training programs. Standards Training standards must be set not only for entry-level workers, but to determine job competency and to provide for the attainment of higher skill levels. These standards should be developed for the industry involved, using input from both labor and management, with the ultimate goal being to bring people up to standards, rather than to bring standards down. Moreover, programs should incorpor- ate a practice used by successful job trainers: periodic evaluation and upgrading to Improve the performance of the programs and to keep them relevant to the changing demands of the workplace. All employers should be required to list all Job vacancies with the U.S. Employment Service. This will provide Information on what skills are required in the workplace as well as provide job referral Information for people who have already attained these skills. Actively Employed Workers Training programs for actively- employed workers must reflect the needs of both workers and employers. A key factor toward achieving this goal is welcoming input from employees. The success of union-negotiated training programs is due in large measure to this type of input. Workers should have an equal voice through their unions in determining jointly with employers what training programs will be created and how they will be administered and operated. A system of joint labor-management committees should plan, design and administer all work-related education and training programs. Where workers are represented by unions, the unions should select the labor members of these committees. In non-union settings, workers should be selected by secret ballot elections of non-supervisory, non-management workers. The biggest roadblock to more employment-based, work-related training is a lack of interest and will on the part of the overwhelming majority of employers. The AFL-CIO Insists that any legislation relating to training workers should create and assure opportunities for labor's full participation, as well as protect labor standards. Training, as with all employee benefits, must be available to all front-line workers equally. Employers should be required to provide all workers with an equal 120 opportunity to share in funds or hours allocated for education and training. We believe reasonable alternatives to proposed payroll assessments for training should include requiring employers to provide at least a basic minimum of 40 hours of job- related training or education -- in addition to other legally required training and routine orientation -- to all their employees in the first year of employment and every two years thereafter. Another alternative that should be considered for expanding private-sector training programs would be to revise federal procurement policy to give some form of credit or preference to contractors who have registered joint labor-management training or apprenticeship programs. This approach could be used for infrastructure/construction projects, service contracts, and contracts for the procurement of goods. Workers must be given assurances that when they improve their productivity through upgrading their skills, they will share in the gains resulting from improved productivity. Although state and federal government cannot be expected to provide training for the entire American workforce of some 1 25 million people, government efforts can be bolstered through alternatives such as collective bargaining. Such negotiated programs already provide training at no cost to the government. Collective bargaining offers one of the few proven avenues for promoting new private investment in training for both new workers as well as actively employed workers. Training programs established through collective bargaining produce highly skilled and qualified workers who perform their jobs productively and efficiently. The evidence Is indisputable: the most successful training programs In the United States today have been established through collective bargaining. According to the report, America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, five of six of the top training success stories In the United States were joint labor management programs established through collective bargaining. Among these programs are innovations negotiated in auto, steel, telecommunications, maritime, printing, public and service industries, as well as others In transportation, manufacturing and construction. Apprenticeship training programs In the U.S. construction Industry are known to be among the finest In the world. One example Is that Poland in transition to rebuilding the country from communism turned to the American building trades joint apprenticeship programs as a model. If America is serious about wanting to achieve long-term economic success, collective bargaining should be promoted by government, business and labor. However, for collective bargaining to have a greater impact, there must be labor law reform. Unless there Is significant reform of these laws, efforts to revive the American economy'will fail. The labor movement has an overriding Interest in raising productivity and competitiveness through high performance and high wage workplaces, where workers are full participants In the decision-making process. Labor organizations and workers realize the desirability of high skills. They will respond positively to the challenges ahead. May 4, 1993 121 Prepared Statement of Paul Cole Good morning, I am Paul Cole, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and secretary-treasurer of the New York State AFL-CIO. I am a member of AFT's school-to-work transitions task force. I formerly chaired AFTs vo- cational education committee, served on the Secretary of Labor's Commission for achieving necessary skills, and Was for several years a classroom teacher. On behalf of the 830,000 members of the American Federation of Teachers, I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on S. 1361, the School -To -Work Opportunities Act of 1993. Few issues are more crucial to our national well-being than the state of our edu- cation system and its ability to prepare young people for productive, useful adult lives. This committee continues to be steadfast and progressive in its commitment to supporting programs that will improve the education and training opportunities of all our citizens, from pre-school to adult and higher education, and for this the Nation owes you its appreciation. The issue before the committee, the reform and expansion of our school -to- work transition system is one that is of great concern to our members. We are appre- ciative that the members of this committee and the administration have recognized the need for greater federal attention to support students' learning for and move- ment into meaningful, high-skill, high-wage careers. We are grateful for the oppor- tunity to present our views on S. 1361, the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. Mr. Chairman, AFT supports the concept and many of the provisions of S. 1361. This legislation can make significant strides in addressing at least two important issues, first of how best to prepare the next generations of workers for a changing economy and, second, how best to ease the long and unstructured paths that our youth currently take in their search for meaningful jobs and careers. First, the restructuring of the U.S. economy to increase its international competi- tiveness is resulting in the loss of low-skill, low-wage jobs, the reorganization and upgrading of tasks that workers perform, and continual changes in the technology that workers must use. These changes point to an increasing need for entry level workers who possess more complex academic and occupational skills, higher-order thinking, reasoning and problem solving skills, greater flexibility to adapt to chang- ing tasks and technologies, and the ability to benefit from continual learning, both on the job and in formal settings, such as postsecondary institutions. Those skills that we have traditionally thought of as "purely academic," are becoming increas- ingly crucial to workplace performance and productivity. Mr. Chairman, although these trends are visible, the rate of change in work places is not nearly what it ought to be. Education and training reform alone will not be sufficient. We must also make a national commitment to full employment strategies, coupled with approaches that will encourage greater numbers of employ- ers to provide high-skill jobs, the need for these additional strategies, however, should in no way limit our movement toward reform that prepares students for pro- ductive work. When greater numbers of these jobs are available, our education and training system must be prepared to send students who can meet their skill de- mands. This will mean preparing all students for immediate employment and for further education and training. The second, but related problem that this legislation can address has to do with easing our young people's paths to productive employment. You see, while the prob- lem of actually getting jobs is a real one for a minority of our youth, for most, it is not the most significant problem. Recent studies indicate that the vast majority of our students are employed during their high school careers. The problem is that their employment during high school and for a full decade after high school tends to be in low-skill, dead-end jobs. They move from one low-skill job to another until their mid-to-late twenties. All youth need some opportunities to explore career op- tions, but for most this decade long period is an unstable one, in which they never realize their potential to be fully productive citizens. This situation is an intolerably wasteful one for these individuals and for our national economy. One of the greatest contributions that the school-to-work opportunities act of 1993 can make is to short- en the duration that young people spend searching, unsuccessfully, for genuine ca- reer opportunities. All of our major economic competitors have such systems in place, and this legislation can begin our movement toward a national system. There is nothing more crucial in this legislation than its intent to advance reform of public education by supporting school-to-work systems that would meet the goals of preparing youth for career paths in high-skill, high-wage jobs and increasing their opportunities for immediate work, and further training and education. Therefore, we strongly support S. 1361 provisions that tie school -to- work programs to the national 122 goals adopted by each state and the high academics associated with those goals. Re- quiring that students in school-to-work programs meet the same high academic standards — tied to meaningful assessments — as those required under the Goals 2000 legislation is an important component of S. 1361. However, these provisions should be strengthened by requiring that the work-based component be planned and coordinated to deliver the same high standards. The work -based component should build upon, reinforce and support high academic and occupational skills taught in schools. Consider a student enrolled in first year algebra, a gateway course for admission to a four year college and to many emerging technical iobs. Our student is placed in a work placement for, say 1 and Y2 days per week, but this placement only re- quires fifth grade arithmetic skills. Such a placement will not build upon mathe- matics being taught in school, and, in fact, will likely reduce the time that our stu- dent will spend mastering higher level math. Schools' efforts to teach will be frus- trated, students will have limited time to study and master content and skills need- ed for real jobs and further education, and communities will view the school-to-work f>rogram as yet another low-skill educational track, disguised as innovation and re- orm. little parent and community support can be expected for such a program. Therefore, we recommend that the work -based component include a program of job training and experiences that are coordinated with learning in the school-based component, and that are consistent with the challenging standards established by states for students under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This requirement will encourage state and local programs to seek employer partners who will provide work placements that are educationally meaningful, instead of make-work jobs that exploit students. We suggest three additional provisions to assure that programs identify job place- ments that are educationally meaningful. First, priority should be given to employer partners who have or are moving toward creating high skill workplaces. Second, where such placements are in short supply, the legislation should support schools to develop high-skill, school-based enterprises that simulate work place tasks and that are well articulated with academic programs. Third, the legislation should re- quire that state and local labor market analyses be conducted and used to deter- mine placements. Currently the legislation permits this activity, but we see it as an important requirement. Publicly funded school -to -work opportunity systems should send a clear message to students that hard work in school toward attaining high standards is important to their futures, nothing in the legislation should entice students to drop out of school and public funding should not be used to support unregulated private schools, therefore, we recommend that the legislation require that, in programs designed for in-school students, occupational skill certificates be developed through cooperation between schools and industries utilizing those skills. Cooperating employers would work with schools to assure the validity of the skills attained and schools would cer- tify the academic content of courses taken by students. This strategy would encour- age schools and employers to develop the kind of school/work placement coordination discussed earlier, and foster greater collaboration around certifying student achieve- ment. Now I would like to turn to ways that the legislation can better support the needs of local schools and staff who will be responsible for delivering the educational pro- grams, past experience indicates that education reform efforts will have limited and disappointing results unless staff responsible for delivering education to students are included in the planning, as well as the implementation of programs. The edu- cation reform movement begun in the early 1980's yielded disappointing results, in part, because we relied primarily on top-down federal and state mandates to schools. Lack of clear standards, curriculum frameworks and staff development pro- grams left school staff unsure about what was expected of them and how they were to reach mandated goals. Further, too often planning and implementation proceeded without frank dialogue with teachers about how the day-to-day realities of life in their schools would affect reform efforts. We need not and must not re-live these mistakes in the reform of school-to-work programs. There are no better resources for planning the kinds of programs called for in S. 1361 than teachers. We rec- ommend that the legislation require that teachers be members of state development and implementation teams and of local partnership entities. Considerable curriculum and staff development for both school and work-based staff will be crucial to successful implementation of the programs envisioned in the legislation. Academic and vocational teachers, counselors, paraprofessionals, post- secondary instructors, and work-place personnel must plan how to deliver coordi- nated instructional programs — a very new experience for most of these staff. As the legislation's funding for development and implementation is short-term and transi- 123 tional, these activities must begin quickly. Curriculum and instructional develop- ment planning should be required uses of funds for state development and imple- mentation grants and for grants to local partnerships. Further, federal technical as- sistance funds should be used to support curriculum and instructional development activities. These funds should supplement the training activities provided for in the connecting activities component. • The connecting activities component of the program is central to the program s success. Currently many schools and employers are unable to carry out these activi- ties, and may decide to contract out these services. This should be permissible dur- ing the early stages of program development. However, as these activities are central to program operation, it is important that the institutions that will be ulti- mately accountable for delivering programs to youth be responsible for them. States and local entities should be encouraged to have school/business partnerships conduct these activities. Legislation can be flexible in permitting either schools or businesses to have primary responsibility for these functions (e.g. the fiduciary agent). By the third year of implementation, we recommend that schools and workplaces — in joint partnership — be fully responsible for the connecting activities component. States should identify how these functions will continue to be funded when their imple- mentation grants end. Mr. Chairman, we applaud the legislation's provisions that provide direct funding to local districts that are prepared to implement programs, and the special attention to high poverty districts. We ask that eligible districts for these funds include large and small school systems, and be geographically dispersed across the nation. Finally, I would like to commend the S. 1361 provisions that protect the rights of both students and existing workers in programs receiving these funds, specifi- cally, I refer to the safeguards that prohibit displacement of any currently employed workers or reduction in their hours of overtime work, wages or employment benefits, and ensure the integrity of existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements, as well as the applicability of health, safety and civil rights laws. Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for this opportunity to provide input into S. 1361. The American Federation of Teachers stands ready to support you in your ef- forts to strengthen and pass this much-needed legislation. Please feel free to call on us. If there are questions that you have of me, I will be happy to respond. Prepared Statement of W. Thomas Musser Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity. I'd like to express my thanks for allowing me to testify before you today in regard to S. 1361— School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. My name is W. Thomas Musser, CEO and owner of tri-M Corp. of Kennett Square, PA. tri-M was founded in 1964 and provides multiple services in the elec- trical trades to the industrial and heavy commercial business sectors. These services include electrical construction, building automation systems, electrical engineering and power systems analysis and telecommunications. The company employs 250 geople with a revenue of $25 million per year. tri-M is headquartered in Kennett quare, PA with offices in Myersville, MD, and Allentown, PA. In February of 1990, our company formed an educational partnership with our local school, Kennett Consolidated School District (KCSD), and tri-M Corp. The partnership's mission is: To encourage and foster communication, cooperation and a positive sharing of resources between KCSD and tri-M Corp. in order to provide a training program that will give students entry level skills for the electrical trades. With this being our mission, we developed three objectives. 1. To educate and vocationally train interested and motivated noncollege bound students in the various aspects of the electrical trades and related activities. 2. To bring the participating students to skills and knowledge levels of a first year apprentice electrician thereby enhancing their earning potential upon graduation from high school. 3. To provide a pool of qualified entry level potential employees for electrical trades. In accordance with the mission statement and objectives, the partnership is well into its foruth successful academic year. The partnership has graduated 31 students with: 9 attending 4-year college program; 5 attending 2-year program in electrical & electronics; 1 in the Navy; 1 in the Army; 1 working for a local electrical utility; and 3 working as electricians. This educational partnership has been beneficial for KCSD, tri-M Corp. and most importantly, the students and the community. One of the most positive outcomes of the program is the students will have acquired skills which will qualify them for potential employment in the electrical trades with a higher earning capacity while 124 the community will benefit from the increased number of skilled workers in the job market thereby reducing potential unemployment and personnel shortages within the electrical trades in our local area. Prepared Statement of Carolyn Post and Kirsten Davidson Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Carolyn Post. I am pleased to be here with my daughter, Kirsten Davidson, to testify on the importance of including people with disabilities in the School to Work Opportunities Act. Kirsten has been blind and seriously learning disabled since birth, but successfully transitioned from school to work last January as a result of collaborative planning involving her, our family, the school and the employer community. Kirsten will tell you about herself and her job. Good morning. Ny name is Kirsten Davidson. I am 22 years old. Last year I grad- uated from Rock Terrace High School in Rockville. Now I work for the federal gov- ernment. I work at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. My job title is Office Aide. I open all the mail, and staple the mail to the envelopes. I do labeling, filing, sealing and hole punching. I go to work every day. I like my job a whole Tot. And I like the people I work with. I started my iob before I graduated from high school. I did not want to sit at home after I finished school. A job coach and my vision teacher worked with me and helped me learn how to do the work for my job. By the time I graduated last Janu- ary I knew how to do my job and didn't need any more help. So when I graduated I could just keep my job. I was so happy because I want to work and get a paycheck. As Office Aide to the Freedom of Information Division of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Kirsten is fulfilling the requirements of a real job in a demand- ing environment. She works along side everyone else in a fully inclusive setting. Before transition planning began, Kirsten made it clear to all of us that she did not want to be sheltered away. She wanted to contribute. Kirsten and I were con- cerned because we knew that after graduation many~students with disabilities were sitting at home unemployed while others went to sheltered environments. When she was about 18 I reached out to the school transition coordinator to begin the transi- tion planning process. Kirsten was fully involved. An agency that works with the school transition coordinator to bridge the gap between school and the world of work located the job at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They were very careful in finding a job that she wanted and that matched her skills with the needs of the employer. Although Kirsten began working with a job coach while she was still in school, it didn't take long to move to natural supports in the office. Accommodations were made with special equipment designed and made by the job coach to enable her to perform her tasks. It has been a real team effort from the very beginning. Kirsten works today because of collaborative planning, educational emphasis on employment preparation and the belief that irrespective of disability she can be, and is, a contributing member of the workforce. Without the opportunities and support provided through the transition experiences, Kirsten most certainly would nave graduated into nothing, or have been forced into a more segregated employment sit- uation. Ultimately, we all know that these other options have a high price tag not only in terms of lost human potential but in terms of tax dollars. Too often young people with challenging disabilities are written off through auto- matic assumptions that they cannot perform. Kirsten is living proof that does not need to be the case. Every student with a disability should have the advantages and experiences necessary to make the kind of seamless transition that was possible for Kirsten. The legislation this Committee is developing will help many young people across the country — both with and without disabilities — achieve this goal. We are thrilled to see that the Congress recognized students with disabilities as one part of a larger student population, as evidenced so clearly in the education re- form legislation. We commend this Subcommittee for following suit and equally including students with disabilities in this school to work transition legislation. It is only through a strong statement of intent that "all students" does indeed mean "ALL", that stu- dents with disabilities can be assured that they will not be excluded. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. Prepared Statement of David R. Johnson Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is David R. Johnson. I appreciate this opportunity to address the subcommittee on behalf of youth with disabilities regarding the School-to-Work Opportunity Act of 1993. I am the Director of the National Transition Network of the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota. In this capacity, I direct a program that is providing 125 technical assistance and evaluation services to state education and vocational reha- bilitation agencies in 30 states currently implementing five year systems change projects. The specific purpose of these projects is to improve state-level policies and firograms to ensure that youth with disabilities successfully make the transition rom school to postsecondary education, work, and community living. This initiative is funded by the U.S. Department .of Education's Office of Special Education and Re- habilitative Services (OSERS). Over the past 18 years, I have been involved in a wide range of federal, state, and local initiatives, all of which have been focused on the school-to-work concerns of young people with disabilities and their families. While I am testifying today in my professional capacity, I would also like to add that as the primary guardian of my brother who is an individual with severe devel- opmental disabilities, I have experienced the issues from a personal perspective. Before I speak to the specific implications of the Act for young people with disabil- ities, I'd like to make a couple of general comments and observations. First, we have realized that when school and community service professionals work together with young people and family members remarkable results can be achieved following high school. For far too many youth with disabilities, however, the pathway to adulthood is difficult. Findings from recent studies on the postschool outcomes and community adjust- ment of young adults with disabilities clearly illustrate the distance we still must fo. The single largest and perhaps most important study was recently commissioned y the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education. The study referred to as the National Longitudinal Transition Study was under- taken by Stanford Research Institutes of California beginning in 1985 and will be completed by the end of 1993. Information was gathered on more than 8,000 former special education students from 300 school districts nationwide. The study essen- tially asked the basic question: "How well do students with disabilities fare follow- ing high school?" While the findings of this study were many, I will limit my com- ments to only a couple that relate directly to my concerns here today. Briefly, what did they find? First, 36% of all youth with disabilities served under publicly mandated spe- cial education services dropped out. On average nationally, this represents a higher dropout rate than for any other group of young people. Second, the study found low levels of postsecondary vocational school partici- pation among young adults with disabilities. Fewer than 17% of these individ- uals had gained access to postsecondary vocational programs three to five years after the time of high school completion. We also have no available information on the numbers of these students who enrolled and then went on to successfully complete their postsecondary programs and enter employment. Third, approximately 43% of youth with disabilities remained unemployed three to five years following high school. Of those who are employed, many work only part-time, are receiving low wages, and the vast majority are not receiving medical insurance coverage or other fringe benefits through their employers. Finally, for far too many, this transition from school has meant sitting idly at home, dependent on family members for support long into adulthood. This is particularly problematic for individuals with severe disabilities who often ex- perience extended periods of time on waiting lists for community services. These findings have been replicated in other studies in states such as Vermont, Minnesota Oregon, Iowa, and Washington. The findings overwhelmingly illustrate that youth with disabilities are experiencing substantial difficulties in successfully completing their high school programs, accessing postsecondary education programs, and entering meaningful employment. There are also a couple of specific points I would like to make regarding the Act itself and its implications for youth with dis- abilities. Second, as a nation, we are now in the midst of re-assessing our educational sys- tems for all students. The extent to which all American youth complete their high school programs with the skills and competencies necessary to successfully compete in the workplace has been a high priority in deliberations among policy makers, pro- fessionals, employers, and parents alike. As these discussions continue, it is of criti- cal importance to include students with disabilities in our nationwide effort to pro- mote systemic educational reform. We have learned some important lessons in re- cent years. In far too many school districts around the country, two separate edu- cational systems have developed with little or no coordination — one system for regu- lar or general education and a separate and distinct system for special education. This isolation and lack of coordination has diminished opportunities for youth with disabilities to successfully participate in a variety of important school-to-work pro- grams. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act offers a national school-to-work policy 77-136 0-94-5 126 that embraces and includes all American youth. The intent to include students with disabilities in the full benefits of this Act is clearly understood, acknowledged and appreciated. Third, it is important to acknowledge that concern over the school-to-work transi- tion of youth with disabilities has been a maior policy initiative and high priority within the U.S. Department of Education and state education agencies across the nation since 1983. This initiative was recently strengthened when specific (school- to-work) transition service requirements were added to Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. The past 10 years can best be characterized as a period of research, demonstration, and experimentation in the search for the most effective methods for assisting youth with disabilities and their families in making the transition from school. So, what have we learned? We have learned that young people with disabilities, including individuals with severe disabilities can and increasingly do successfully participate in post- secondary education programs, employment, and all other aspects of community living. In Ames, Iowa, Peggy G., an individual with severe disabilities, graduated from high school six years ago. Since this time she has worked two part-time jobs. She divides her work schedule between a local curio shop and Target, a national discount store. Last year she was selected as one of Target's five na- tional employees of the year. Peggy lives in her own apartment, with help from a local community service agency. She has even found time to learn to play the guitar and participate in an adult literacy program sponsored by her town's li- brary. We have learned that partnerships between educators, rehabilitation and human service professionals, students and family members, and employers are all necessary to make this happen. In suburban Chicago, Illinois, the Transition Resource Agency Council (TRAC) share information and pool agency resources to assist young people with disabilities in securing employment, living independently, and participating in their community. TRAC is an interagency group composed of nearly a dozen dif- ferent school and community service agencies. Employers are also members of TRAC. This program recently received national recognition as an exemplary model of community-level partnerships for transition. We have learned that the principles of self determination, individual and fam- ily empowerment, and personal choice are powerful vehicles through which human potential is reached. Tony S., a 23-year old young man with multiple disabilities and limited com- munication skills, had been terminated from three jobs because of his "challeng- ing^ behavior. After much discussion, staff implemented a program through which Tony was brought to several worksites to observe, and was then given a choice as to where he wanted to work. Tony has been employed at his "cho- sen" job for over three years now and is described as a model employee. We have learned that special education, as a national program, cannot re- main in isolation of the general education system if it is to succeed in guaran- teeing young people with disabilities secure futures following high school. In rural Rockford, Minnesota, Mike J., a young man with a severe disability, is participating in a regular vocational education program in welding. This was made possible Decause Mike's special education teacher has developed a cooper- ative relationship and individual plan with the welding instructor. Mike plans to graduate and go on to a postsecondary vocational training program in weld- ing and auto-body. The individual strategies and supports developed for Mike at his high school will be shared with his postsecondary instructors. We have also learned that we have a long way yet to go. Study after study has shown that students with disabilities need a sound foundation of high school preparation and support during the transition from school. The school-based and work-based learning programs included in the Act are essential to the development of this foundation for all students. These points serve as the basis of my recommendations. There are four aspects of the law I would like to comment on today. /. Important Use of the Term "All Students" The Act clearly defines "all students" to include students with disabilities. It is important that the terms "all students" and "all youth" be consistently incorporated throughout the Act, to ensure that students with disabilities and others to be af- fected by the legislation are given full consideration by state and local planners. We know from experience that the exclusion of youth with disabilities from earlier 127 "school -to- work" programs has not resulted from a lack of Congressional intent, but rather because the statutory language was not sufficiently clear so as to provide in- disputable guidance to state and local administrative authorities to grant individ- uals with disabilities equal access to these programs. There is now an opportunity to strengthen the statutory language and ensure that youth with disabilities are, without question, considered as future participants of programs that will be imple- mented under this Act. It is also important that language be contained in the bill to make it clear that youth with disabilities includes students with the full range of disabilities. //. Relationship of the Act to IDEA It is important to acknowledge that the Act is fully consistent with and com- plements the spirit and intent of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- cation Act of 1990. The participation of youth with disabilities in various programs of this Act should be guided by and consistent with the already established (school- to-work), transition service requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- cation Act (IDEA) of 1990. IDEA establishes specific requirements and an appro- priate mechanism for planning and making decisions regarding the participation of youth with disabilities in various programs identified within the School-to-Work Op- portunity Act of 1993. IDEA specifies that the individualized education program (IEP) for each student, beginning no later then age 16 (and at a younger age, if de- termined appropriate) must include a statement of transition services to be provided and a statement of the school's and other participating agency's responsibilities when providing these services before the student leaves the school setting. The de- termination of appropriate transition services must be based on the individual stu- dent's needs, choices, and preferences. IDEA defines "transition services" to "include instruction, community experiences, the development of postschool and adult living objectives, and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional voca- tional evaluation." These are the types of programs and services currently proposed in the school-to-work bill. It is important that a statement giving full reference to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its transition service require- ments be included in the legislation. This will help to ensure that states and local- ities designing and implementing programs under the School-to-Work Opportunity Act involve students in a manner consistent with the intent and provisions of IDEA. ///. Work-Based Learning Component "Paid work experience" is one of the requirements of the work -based learning com- ponent. The terms "work" and "employment" as used in this bill should include sup- ported employment (as defined in Title I, Part VI-C of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986). Since 1986, supported employment has been successfully used as a means of providing individuals with disabilities, including individuals with severe disabilities, meaningful paid employment opportunities. "Instruction in general workplace competencies" is also one of the requirements of the work-based learning component. It is important that the notion of what con- stitutes "general workplace competencies" include not only job specific skills devel- opment, but also the development of independent living, social, and other skills re- lated to successful workforce participation. Research nas shown that individuals with disabilities often experience employment difficulties due to a lack of personal and interpersonal skills that enable them to successfully interact with co-workers and respond to everyday job demands and expectations. The use of "Workplace mentors" is an important contribution of the Act. It would be helpful to expand the current definition of "Workplace mentor" to include in addi- tion to an employee of the workplace, other individuals approved by the employer who also possess the skills and knowledge to facilitate student learning at the work site. Such individuals include job coaches, work study coordinators, special edu- cators, vocational rehabilitation professionals, and others who provide specialized training and support to students with disabilities. This type of support is readilv acknowledged by employers as an effective means of ensuring that students with disabilities learn and acquire job skills. IV. School-Based Learning Component The first requirement in the school-based learning component addresses "career exploration and counseling." This is clearly an important aspect of the program for all students. Students with disabilities, however, many times require special assist- ance in making informed decisions regarding their future careers. In regard to this, it is important that counselors and other school staff assisting the student and the students family be familiar with the full range of assistive technology devices, envi- ronmental accommodations, job accommodations, and other types of support that 128 are needed by individuals with disabilities to fully participate in school and commu- nity based learning situations. A second aspect of the school-based learning component will require "regularly scheduled evaluations to identify academic strengths and weaknesses of students . . . ." For youth with disabilities it is important that appropriate assess- ments be used that allow for accommodations in materials and procedures. Opportu- nities to participate in programs have, in the past, been sometimes denied when a student has been unable to pass a minimal competency test for which accommoda- tions in assessment procedures were not allowed. Part B of the Individuals with Dis- abilities Education Act identifies specific procedures and assurances that should provide adequate guidance to state and local administrative authorities regarding this matter. It is also important, and certainly impUed throughout the Act, that individuals with disabilities, family members, and organizations representing these individuals will be included and have the opportunity to provide input to state and local agen- cies as programs identified within this Act are developed and implemented. Their direct involvement and participation is critically needed to ensure that this public policy, as intended, results in an inclusive national program that extends full oppor- tunities and benefits to youth with disabilities. We've come a long way in ensuring that individuals with disabilities throughout the nation achieve meaningful and pro- ductive lives following their high school experience. The School-to-Work Opportunity Act of 1993 is yet another important step in that direction. Thank vou, Mr. Chair- man and members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to address you today. Prepared Statement of Donna Milgram Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee. I am Donna Milgram, Director of the Nontraditional Employment Training Project of Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW). WOW is a national women's employment organization representing 500 training and employment orga- nizations in all 50 states. WOW is also a member of the Coalition on Women and Job Training, which is comprised of 27 organizations working to ensure that employ- ment and training policies support girls and women and lead to their economic self- sufficiency. On behalf of the Coalition I am presenting you with the Coalition's position paper on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act which discusses broad recommendations on program content and administration and is appended to my testimony. This morn- ing I will direct my comments to how girls are served which crosses both content and administration. The Coalition on Women and Job Training commends the Administration and the Labor and Human Resources Committee for their efforts to create a comprehensive school-to-work transition model. We are here today because those of us working on education and employment issues know that our young people who are not going on to college are in urgent need of our assistance in making the transition from high school to the workforce. Girls not going to college need our help most of all. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 31% of girls receiving high school diplomas in 1992 did not partici- pate in the labor force, compared to 15% percent of boys graduating in 1992. Among high school drop outs, the numbers are even more startling; 44%, or nearly half, of girls without a high school diploma are unemployed as compared to 35% of boys. 1 Of those girls and boys who have graduated from high school, and do progress to employment, there is tremendous disparity in the occupational fields that they work in and in the wages they earn. Young women are clustered in sales, service, administrative and clerical support occupations, while young men are clustered in trade and industry occupations. Even in the 1990s, most young women graduating from high school and going straight into the workforce can expect to take home paychecks that are 25% smaller than their male counterparts. Thirty percent of young women are employed in ad- ministrative support occupations, with an average female wage of $364 per week. Another 22% of young women are employed in sales occupations, with an average female wage of $313 per week. In contrast, 39% of young men are employed as oper- ators, fabricators and laborers with an average male wage of $393 per week and 20% of young men are employed in precision production, craft and repair occupa- tions, which pay an average male wage of $503 per week. In summary, about half of young women work in jobs that pay an overall average wage of $338 per week, i Source: October 1992 as Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics 129 while almost 60% of young men work in jobs that pay an overall wage of $448 per week — a $109 wage differential.2 OCCUPATIONAL CLUSTERS OF EMPLOYED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES, 16 TO 24 YEARS OF AGE, NOT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, BY SEX FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY % OF YOUNG WOMEN WORKING IN CATEGORY AVERAGE WAGE Administrative Support 30% $364 Sales 22% $313 MALE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY % OF YOUNG MEN WORKING IN CATEGORY AVERAGE WAGE Operators. Fabricators. & Laborers 39% $393 Precision Production. Craft & Repair 20% $503 % ol Young Men In Top 2 Occupational Categories 59% Average Wage $448 % o( Young Women In Top 2 Occupational Categories 52% Average Wage $338 Wage Differential = $109 Why are young women graduating from high school earning wages so much lower than young men? Data on vocational education and apprenticeship training provides us with at least a partial explanation. Girls are being trained for different jobs than boys. In 1987, girls in high school were by far best represented in vocational edu- cation courses that taught clerical skills, while boys were greatest in number in trade and industry courses.3 With regard to apprenticeship, a 1992 General Ac- counting Office Report shows women as only 6.5% of all apprentices (n = 13,784) and highly represented in apprenticeships such as Cosmetology (90%) which Days an average wage of $247 per week. Girls are under represented in apprenticeships in trades such as car repairer (0.5%), which has an average wage of $717 per week.-* Clearly, there is a relationship between the vocational and apprenticeship training that girls receive and the low paying jobs in which they are ultimately employed, when they are employed at all. Will the Administrations School-to-Work Opportunities Act prepare girls for the high-tech, high skilled and high paying jobs that characterize our changing labor market? Or will girls continue to be trained in only low paying clerical, sales and service fields? This summer Wider Opportunities for Women sought to answer these questions by collecting sex segregated data on 15 School-to-Work Transition dem- onstration sites overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor and Jobs for the Future. It was our understanding that the Adnunistration's School-to-Work bill would build upon and advance existing youth apprenticeship and School-to-Work programs, so we wanted to see how some of the Department's own demonstration sites were doing with regard to serving girls. The chart attached at the end of this testimony on the Representation of Boys and Girls in School-to- Work Transition Demonstration Sites represents WOW's findings. As you can see, there are no girls at all in three of the 14 demonstration sites and only one or two girls in three other sites. Thus six of the 14 regular demonstra- tion sites have either none or very few girls. Across the 14 demonstration sites we see that overall there are fewer girls than boys; they are only 42% of the site partici- Sants. Most revealing however is that 90% of the girls are clustered in the last five emonstration sites on the chart: note the occupational areas — the majority of the girls are in the allied health careers, teaching and education, graphic arts, office technology and manufacturing technology — most of which are traditionally female. a Source: Unpublished tabulations from October 92 Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Based on 7 to 8 year time frame for 16 to 24 year old high school graduates. 3 Source: "Vocational Education in the United States: 1969-1990," National Center for Edu- cation Statistics. erience in "all aspects of the industry the student is preparing to enter" a central eature of (a) the school-based learning component, (b) the work -based learning com- Sonent, and (c) the outcomes addressed in certifying the students' skills. As intro- uced, the bill: a. Omits it from the school-based component [Sec. 103]. Only if it is built into the school-based component can it serve as a rich curriculum platform for inte- grating academic skills and making them relevant to the workplace. Moreover, the school's educational responsibility to its students means it cannot leave the learning about all aspects of an industry in the hands of employer alone. b. Omits it from the skill standards and certification process [Sec. 4(4XD) and 4(13)]. The skill certificate has the potential to drive and shape the real curricu- lum, upon which students and teachers focus, particularly as we move further toward standards-based education reform. If "all aspects of the industry" are not included in the skills targeted as outcomes, they are more likely to get ig- nored, with the danger that the skills will become overly narrow. c. Includes it only in a very diluted form in the work-based component [Sec. 102(4) and 4(1)]. Instead of including the enumerated aspects (planning- man- agement, etc.), it calls only for "a variety of elements" — "such" as those enumer- ated. This misconstrues it as being a set of components, as opposed to an overarching approach which enables students to understand how an industry functions. 2. High-level academics — sufficient to enter four-year college upon high school grad- uation The Act contains significant provisions on mastery of academic skills. Yet there is still significant possibility that students who enter a school-to-work program will face barriers to the full range of postsecondary institutions, feeding parents' and educators' tracking concerns. In particular, students entering the program and per- forming at the expected academic levels within it may nevertheless not be eligible for four-year postsecondary institutions upon graduation from high school. This would impose a significant cost for making a choice in 10th grade, for example, in the case of students who, particularly after becoming more engaged in their high school studies, by the 12th grade have expanded their academic goals — but now find themselves eligible only for a two-year institution. If the academic merit of these programs is to be viewed as equivalent to other programs, they must qualify the student to enter and succeed in four-year institutions upon high school graduation.4 3. High-performance work organizations as focus of work-based component "Because most American employers organize work in a way that does not require high skills, they report no shortage of people who have such skills and foresee no such shortage. [America's Choice Page 3.] In a low-skill work place organized around routinized jobs, the task of providing a high-quality work -based placement for students which meets the requirements oi Sec. 102 is rather daunting. The task becomes much easier in a high-performance work place where more au- thority and responsibility are devolved to workers, jobs are broader and less frag- mented, etc. (See last year's S. 1790 for a definition.) Thus, these work places should be the primary target for work -based placements. If other, low-skill sites are to be used at all, great care and oversight must be maintained. * This is a two-way street and may, in some states, require reassessment by the postsecondary system of admissions reouirements to reflect new ways of meeting high academic standards — this is precisely the kind of secondary- postsecondary cooperation which the Act should foster. 138 C. Facing basic realities — overcoming barriers to serving all youth Like the Perkins Act, S. 1361 has far-reaching goals. However, we will never get there, if we don't confront some basic realities about schools and the workplace. 1. Limited employer placements America's private firms are far from prepared to offer work -based placements for all our youth, let alone high-quality placements. Only a small minority of firms now f>rovide significant training to their own line workers below the management level — et alone to "marginal" high-school youth. Moreover, relatively few of these compa- nies meet any definition of "high-performance work organization," raising serious questions about the quality and breadth of skills that any students placed there would master. We have two choices. We can wait for the full transformation of the American workplace and in the meantime make modest increases in the handful of quality placements now available — perhaps inflating this number by ignoring real quality criteria and placing kids in dead-end jobs with no real educational content. Or we can recognize and use the resources that are sufficient to serve all students — name- ly the schools and their teaching staff. We can have a system in which all students participate in high-quality, real-life learning that is linked to academic mastery, if we are willing to recognize that, for some time to come, most of the experiential placements will have to be generated by the schools themselves. Congress should amend the bill in two ways. First, expand the definition of workplace to include school-based work placements such as student-run enterprises and school-sponsored community service programs, provided that are of sufficient quality and intensity to otherwise meet the quality requirements of the Act. (The provisions concerning wages, which are appropriate for external work placements, should be more flexible for school-based work place- ments.) Second, link local grants to school systems that are restructuring their academic programs so that all students engage in project-based multi-disciplinary learning that integrates theoretical concepts with hands-on experience, so that the school-to- work program would be one, academically equivalent part of an overall school re- form strategy. 2. Tendencies toward exclusion and inequities Anytime quality is scare, inequality becomes the basis for its rationing — a long tradition in both the school and the work place. We will not have high quality school to work opportunities for all youth unless the bill is strengthened to ensure that all receive the assistance and services they need to fully participate and succeed. This includes:5 a. Equal access to all programs — including elimination of gender, race, or dis- ability bias in counseling, prerequisites which screen out certain groups, un- equal ability to access information, and other barriers. b. Provision of all support services which various groups and individuals need to succeed, such as tutoring for educationally disadvantaged students, language instruction for students with limited English proficiency, adaptive services for disabled youth, and supports for students with children. c. A system for collecting adequate data breakdowns, program-by-program, on participation and successful outcomes by race, sex, disability, and disadvantage. d. When this data reveals unequal rates of participation or success, effective steps to be taken, with the participation of these populations, to identify and overcome these disparities. e. High quality staff development and technical assistance to carry out these tasks. 6 3. Out-of-school youth Schools should be required to take vigorous effective steps to encourage out-of- school youth to come back to restructured programs. But this alone ("we told them they could come back") cannot by itself constitute making programs available to all. There must be an emphasis on making community -based programs available as well. These can build on a strong existing base of expertise within the CBO commu- 8 The Perkins Act has strong, more specific provisions on most of these points. The 1992 regu- lations issued by the Department of Education, however, have served to narrow the scope of the protections afforded students, by changing the explicit words of the Act a We also support many of the equity proposals of the Coalition for Women and Job Training and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. 139 nity. It will, however, require the allocation of significantly greater resources to pro- vide for expanded enrollment of these youth. 4. The gap between federal law and program beneficiaries and providers As we have noted from our experience with Perkins, many of the most important provisions of education law which you enact are routinely ignored. In fact, teachers, students, and parents never even hear about them — let alone have the enabling tools to make them a reality. This bill will never achieve its intended goal of creating high quality school-to- work opportunities for all American youth unless it contains those enabling tools, including: a. An unambiguous guarantee to all youth of those opportunities. b. The information, assistance, and authority for these youth and their par- ents to (i) obtain these guarantees, (ii) participate in shaping programs, 7 and (iii) remedy the problems that will inevitably occur. c. Systems for ensuring that information about these guarantees and involve- ment in shaping the programs extends beyond the school district central offices to the teachers. d. State and federal responsibilities for both technical assistance and monitor- ing compliance, along with a reorientation to what should be their primary mis- sion of serving the needs and rights of students — rather than administrative convenience. This will also require significantly higher levels of staffing than now exists in the Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education. As an organization which advocates for students and parents, and is thus ultimately concerned with delivery of services, we would nevertheless strongly support additional resources being targeted to these administrative functions.8 D. WAIVERS Whether your least favorite Secretary was William Bennett or Shirley Hufstedtler, Willard Wirtz or Raymond Donovan, you should think twice before re- linquishing your Constitutional role as the legislative voice of the people through the broad waiver authority in this bill (along with Goals 2000 and the Administra- tion's Elementary and Secondary Education Act proposal). Not not only regulations but Acts of Congress themselves can be waived, with extremely little in the way of objective criteria or public involvement, including the very provisions that are most critical to the Perkins Act and indeed the provisions you haven't even written yet but will decide are critical for the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Moreover, a more careful investigation into the actual degree of need for increased waiver authority would recognize that much of the call for waivers is coming not from the rigors of federal law but from its effective absence. That is, as noted ear- lier, the lack of accurate information about federal mandates is endemic at the local level — where those in the school often have little basis for knowing whether a man- date has been imposed by the federal government, the state, or someone in the dis- trict office. In fact, most of the detailed regulations facing schools are state require- ments. CONCLUSION Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with you as you strive to make the promise of this Act a reality. Prepared Statement of Richard Apling Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Rich- ard Apling. I am a specialist in social legislation in the Education and Public Wel- fare Division of the Congressional Research Service. I would like to introduce my CRS colleagues: Ms. Ann Lordeman specializes in issues related to employment and training. Mr. Robert Lyke specializes in tax issues related to employer training. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before you on the challenges facing high-school age students making the transition from school to work, and specifically on how S. 1361, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993, addresses those challenges. 'The Perkins Act has requiremente, modeled on Head Start, for states to issue effective proce- dures whereby students, parents, teachers, and area residents can participate in state and local decisions affecting the programs. s We also would support the additional workplace safeguards proposed by the AFL-CIO, as well as their positions concerning the primacy of the education focus of these programs and the need for worker and labor involvement 140 As you know, Congress and the nation have become increasingly concerned about the difficulties many face in moving from high school to well paying, high skilled jobs in the adult labor force. After high school, many youths spend years in low pay- ing, "dead end" jobs before moving onto higher paying, more secure occupations. Some never make this transition. This is probably one reason why real wages for those with 12 years of education or less have declined significantly since 1973. Over the past several years, members of this subcommittee and other members of Congress have sponsored legislative proposals to assist youth in moving from school to work. S. 1361 incorporates the Administration's proposal to address these concerns. CRS has been asked to examine implementation issues regarding S. 1361. We have presented our analysis in a CRS general distribution memorandum that we will summarize in our testimony today, f request that this memorandum be entered into the record. The memorandum discusses several broad features of the bill as well as a number of specific implementation issues. Today I will concentrate on the following aspects of the bill: Waiving requirements of current Federal education and training programs; Joint administration by the Departments of Education and Labor; The relationship between State occupational skill standards that the bill would require ana national skill standards that would be created under other proposed legislation; and The promotion of State and local flexibility within broad program require- ments. WAIVERS OF CURRENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS S. 1361 aims to promote a national school-to-work system built on current pro- Eams, rather than to create a new, separate school-to-work effort. To do this, the gislation would provide "venture capital" to assist States and localities to plan and initiate school-to-work programs. When the funds appropriated under this Dill end, the programs established would be expected to continue with other Federal, State, local, and private resources. A key component for building on existing Federal resources would be waivers from certain requirements of Federal education and training programs. The use of waiv- ers raises several issues: whether it is possible to create effective school-to -work pro- grams without changing the basic purposes of current Federal programs; what hap- pens when there is disagreement about central purposes and provisions of current programs; how specific the legislation should be on what can and cannot be waived; ana how to coordinate the waivers in this legislation with other waiver authorities. The bill does not permit waivers that would change the basic purposes of pro- grams or alter key provisions. These limits may impede the creation of effective school -to-work programs that have different goals. For example, a central purpose of many Federal education and training programs is to serve disadvantaged stu- dents. How can funds from these programs be used to support school-to-work pro- grams that aim to serve all students? A second issue is that it may be difficult to determine the primary purpose and central provisions of current programs, which could lead to confusion over what can and cannot be waived. For example, under Job Corps, at least 80 percent of partici- pants are required to reside at Job Corps centers. Since one stated purpose of Job Corps is to establish residential and nonresidential centers, one could argue that this requirement could be waived. On the other hand, since Job Corps is unique partly because it is primarily a residential program, one could argue that waiving this requirement could dilute the basic purpose of the program. This type of scrutiny would be required for each program subject to waiver authority. A third issue is how specific the bill should be about the particular requirements that could be waived. The bill contains two approaches: For Department of Edu- cation programs, the bill does not specify requirements for which waivers would be considered, while for the Job Training Partnership Act, it identifies specific require- ments that could be waived. There are different implications for implementation as- sociated with each approach. Less specificity could increase the Department of Edu- cation's administrative flexibility but could decrease the influence Congress has over changes in current programs. In addition, lack of specific guidance could raise un- certainties among States and localities about how much flexibility they have in using current Federal programs to sustain their school-to-work initiatives. In con- trast, the greater specificity for Department of Labor programs could possibly pro- vide more guidance on Congressional intent, but also could limit the Department's flexibility. 141 Finally, issues about waivers could arise in other legislation that Congress may consider to improve coordination among Federal education and training programs, and it would seem desirable not to have different lists of waivers available. Different waiver authorities could perpetuate a fragmented rather than a coordinated system of education and training programs if States and localities had to sort out which waivers would be most applicable to which pieces of legislation. JOINT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Another central component of S. 1361 is that two Federal agencies would be joint- ly responsible for the administration of the program: the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. Joint administration raises several general questions, which the bill leaves unanswered: How would general administrative provisions and Earantees (such as student privacy rights in the General Education Provisions Act) maintained? How much would joint administrative activities (such as promulgat- ing regulations and reviewing grant proposals) delay program implementation? How much discretion should the Departments of Education and Labor have in determin- ing the administrative structure of the program? Who arbitrates disagreements and golicy differences between the two Departments? How would the Departments of Education and Labor jointly allocate and account for program appropriations? Who is ultimately responsible for program administration? RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS The bill would require States receiving implementation grants to describe how they would establish a system of occupational skill standards and certify that stu- dents completing school-to-work programs meet those standards. This requirement raises the question of how these standards and certificates would be coordinated with the proposed national occupational standards and certificates that would be created under a National Skill Standards Board, if the Congress adopts the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (S. 1150). The bill would require that State standards "take into account the work" of that board. At the same time, S. 1150 and S. 1361 could create competing national and State skill standards systems. The national board under S. 1150 would aim at creat- ing a single set of standards for occupational clusters, leading to nationally recog- nized skills certificates. The standards established under S. 136 l's State school-to- work programs could lead to certificates that are recognized within individual States but that might not be portable from one State to another. Since the national skill standards system presumably would be voluntary, some States nu'ght prefer to use the systems they develop rather than adopting national standards. The result could be a confusing array of State standards and certificates together with a "national" system created under the Goals 2000 legislation. STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY The bill permits States and communities to create school-to-work systems by building on a wide variety of programs, including career academies, tech-prep, and cooperative education. The bill requires, however, that any system incorporate three basic components: (1) work -based learning, including paid work experience, job training, work- place mentoring, and instruction in general workplace competencies; (2) school-based learning, including career exploration, academic study, and diagnostic assessments; and (3) connecting activities to bridge school-based and work -based learning. While allowing State and local variation within broad criteria is desirable, issues could be raised about this approach. For example, if the ultimate goal is to create a national school-to-work structure, too much variation could lead to dissimilar, dis- connected programs rather than a national system. Some also might question whether the required components are appropriate. An example is paid work experience and work-based learning. Paying students and re- quiring substantial on-the-job instruction by current workers could deter employer participation. Some might argue that less expensive alternatives such as school- based enterprises and unpaid internships could be effective and less burdensome to employers. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the issues we have discussed today in connection with S. 1361 should not be seen as a negative assessment of the proposal. Such is- sues could arise with any national proposal to improve the transition from school 142 to work. Other proposals also would have to address how to incorporate school-to- work initiatives into the environment of current education and training programs; how to coordinate program administration among Federal agencies; how to certify students' occupational skills; and how to build a national system while allowing for State and local flexibility. We would be happy to answer any of your questions. [Additional material is retained in the files of the committee.] Prepared Statement of Lawrence Perlman Mr. Chairman, my name is Lawrence Perlman, chairman and chief executive offi- cer of Ceridian Corporation, with headquarters in Minneapolis. This testimony is submitted on behalf of The Business Roundtable, comprising more than 200 CEOs of our nation's leading companies. I serve as chairman of the Roundtable's Working Group on Workforce Training and Development. The Business Roundtable aopreciates this opportunity to share with you and the committee our views on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. We are de- lighted to work with the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the development of policy in this important area. For the record, The Business Roundtable has recently issued a statement entitled, "Workforce Training and Development for U.S. Competitiveness." This statement calls for a national commitment to improve skills training and workforce develop- ment in order to enhance U.S. international competitiveness. It is our view that the restructuring of the world economy, global competition, international economic inte- gration, unprecedented technological change, defense conversion and related struc- tural changes demand a new national workforce development strategy. I would ask that the full statement of August 1993 be printed in the hearing record so that I might summarize our key principles and focus today only on our recommendations concerning the transition from school-to-work. PRINCIPLES FOR WORKFORCE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY 1. Investment in workforce training and skills upgrading is an urgent priority for u.s. competitiveness. In the integrated global economy, workforce quality drives na- tional competitiveness. A major determinant of America's competitiveness is its peo- ple. The structural transformation of the American economy demands a substantial improvement in workforce training and development. 2. Workforce training should be seen as an investment in human capital. A long- term approach is required, aimed at continuously improving and upgrading the skills of current employees as well as providing the skills that will enable those out of work to get jobs. Every employer in America should create its own strategic vision around the principles of the high performance workplace. 3. U.S. workforce development policy should be based on the principles of total quality. A revolutionary new approach is required in the design of workforce train- ing and development programs. Those programs should be based on the principles of Total Quality Management: identification of "customers" and their requirements, a commitment to continuous improvement, benchmarking successful programs, re- sults measurement, and involvement of stakeholders in creating solutions. 4. Improving workforce skills will create employment opportunities. Economic growth in a global context can translate into more and better employment opportu- nities only if the workforce itself is competitive. Education, workforce development, skills improvement and other investments in training, therefore, have a direct effect on employment opportunity. 5. Improvement of K-12 education is critical. Business recognizes that public and private training efforts can address only a part of the challenge of unemployment and skills inadequacy, particularly for the economically disadvantaged. 6. Building high-skilled work organizations requires teamwork and partnerships. Collaboration and networking among business, labor, education and government will be important to develop voluntary national occupational skill standards and skill en- hancement programs to improve workforce competitiveness. 7. Program delivery systems should be streamlined and administered at the local level. A central element of a new national workforce development system should be the consolidation of current federal, state and local workforce-related programs. 8. Business should have a leadership role. U.S. business, both as a provider and a principal "customer" of workforce training programs, should have a leadership role in the formulation and implementation of workforce development policies. Business should also engage with State and local government in efforts to design, evalu- ate,manage and implement workforce development programs. 143 On the basis of these principles, our Business Roundtable group has made policy recommendations in five priority areas: school-to-work transition; skills standards; dislocated worker assistance; training the current workforce; and streamlining exist- ing training systems. IMPROVING THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION With respect specifically to .improving the transition from school to work, The Business Roundtable offers a number of recommendations for what should be key elements of successful transition programs: Recognition of the central role employers must play in effective school-to-work transition programs — in the development of standards; in curriculum preparation; in the design of structured work experiences and other school-to-work models; in the certification process; and in the creation of work-based learning opportunities for students. Definition of the skills required based on the "customer driven" approach. In addi- tion to the basic readiness skills recommended by SCANS, 1 workforce competitive- ness also requires the development of skills needed by high performance workplaces. The development of these skills should be one element of a broader partnership among business, education, labor and government to implement the principles of Total Quality. A curriculum that integrates school-based and work site learning, developed joint- ly by schools, business and labor where appropriate, that will insure that there are high standards for graduation and that students learn the required skills. Business, large and small, should become engaged with local education agencies and schools to improve the school-to-work transition process. An effective collabora- tion between schools and business must ensure that transition programs teach stu- dents the skills that business needs. In the end, this will be the best incentive for active business participation. A system for giving credentials for those acquiring the skills. Business ultimately will need to make the commitment that where the achievement of skill credentials is based on the principles of competitiveness and Total Quality, such credentials will be a meaningful factor in hiring decisions, along with legal considerations and ac- tual job requirements. The U.S. government could be a catalyst in funding pilot projects designed to rep- licate "best practices" and in helping to build capacity at the state and local levels to improve the school-to-work transition and employer cooperation with educational institutions. THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT The legislation pending before the Committee, the School-to -Work Opportunities Act of 1993, responds to the Business Roundtable's call for new policy initiatives to improve workforce training and development for U.S. competitiveness. We commend the administration for proposing this legislation and Senator Simon and the biparti- san group of Senators for co-sponsoring it. This bipartisan measure would encourage partnerships of employers,educators and others to build a high quality school -to -work system; one that prepares young people for careers in high-skill, high-wage jobs. We know that the best programs will involve partnerships among business, labor, education, parents, community or- ganizations and others. This is the essence of the School to Work Opportunities Act and the Roundtable strongly supports this approach. Mr. Chairman, as the Business Roundtable pointed out in its recent statement, employers play a central role in successful school-to-work transition programs. They can help define skill requirements, work with schools to design quality classroom experiences and create learning opportunities linked to the world of work. It is es- sential, therefore, that the legislation as much as possible recognize the contribution of employers in helping these programs succeed at the state and local levels — to en- sure that programs are "customer^ driven. The Business Roundtable is pleased that the legislation contemplates that states, in applying for planning grants, will describe how they will enlist the active and continued participation in planning and development of employers and other inter- ested parties. And, in applying for implementation grants, states are to describe the procedure to be used for obtaining the involvement of employers and others. 1 Basic skills, Thinking Skills, and Personal Qualities. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary skills. U.S. Department of Labor. 144 Most importantly, the legislation provides that state subgrants to local partner- ships may be used to recruit and provide technical assistance to employers and to establish consortia of employers. Notwithstanding these positive features, we believe the legislation can be strengthened by farther involving employers in state and local school-to-work pro- grams. The Business Roundtable would like to offer two suggestions to improve this legislation that would encourage employers to be effective members of local partner- ships and active sponsors of workplace learning opportunities. First, the legislation should provide that states planning comprehensive statewide school-to-work systems (sec. 202) should establish a planning council, board, or com- mission that has significant business representation. This will ensure business in- volvement in the quality and structure of work -based learning experiences and re- cruitment of local employer sponsors. School-to-work programs succeed only when students are able to link their aca- demic experience with the real demands of the workplace. Several states have al- ready demonstrated models for successful use of these state-wide business oriented councils to plan school-to-work programs. These include Oregon's Work Based Qual- ity Council and Wisconsin's Executive Cabinet for Quality Workforce. Second, the recent General Accounting Office Report, Transitions from School to Work, suggests that the success of local programs is highly dependent on "strong links between schools and employers." Business leaders can promote quality stand- ards, actively recruit local employer sponsors, and oversee the quality of workplace experiences. These links could be formalized in the legislation by specifying that local partner- ships created under section 212 (f) and (g) for school-to-work programs have signifi- cant business representation. Conforming language could be added in section 104 on Connecting Activities to specify the necessity of building these bridges. Students enrolled in programs with active employer involvement can be exposed to workplace requirements of high productivity work teams, total quality manage- ment and new technologies. They can also have an opportunity to interact within a diverse workforce. Hopefully, students will have learning experiences that relate directly to the jobs of the future and- the demands of employers. The participation of local employers in school-to-work programs ideally can rive young people an opportunity to learn in high performance work organizations. They can have an educational experience of workplace "total quality" that includes cus- tomer orientation, stakeholder involvement, and continuous improvement for com- petitiveness as part of the curriculum. This legislation can afford young people a special opportunity to learn about being employable: to understand the modern high-performance workplace and thus be em- powered to compete. To achieve this goal the legislation should encourage the active involvement of local business, small, medium and large. Again, Mr. Chairman, there are several models of such partnerships currently overseeing local programs: the Industrial Management Council, in Rochester, N.Y.; the Job Training Center, in Rochester, MN; the Ford Academy of Manufacturing Sciences, in Nashville, TN; and the Work Force LA. Youth Academy, in Los Ange- les, CA. Mr. Chairman, it is not customary for business executives to call for additional requirements in federal legislation. However, it is essential for business to have a strong and active role in programs intended to raise the education level and experi- ence of students to the workplace standards of tomorrow. The competitive and pro- ductivity needs of U.S. employers-demand excellence in school-to-work programs. And America's young people deserve nothing less if they are to have a chance to compete in the global economy. Mr. Chairman, improving the transition from school-to-work for millions of young people is an essential element for enhancing America's long-term ability to compete in the world. The Business Roundtable is pleased to support this initiative and is prepared to work with Congress and the Administration to encourage the commit- ment of America's employers. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the development of this im- portant initiative. [Additional material is retained in the files of the committee.] Statement of the National Education Association The National Education Association (NEA), representing more than two million education employees, is pleased to offer testimony on S. 1361, the School-to -Work Opportunities Act. We applaud the efforts of President Clinton, Secretaries Riley 145 and Reich, Chairman Simon, and others who are dedicated to preparing high school students for high skills, high wage jobs. The statistics are familiar. Half of the students who graduate from high school each year do not continue on to a four-year college. Of those who do enter college, only about half actually complete a baccalaureate degree. Many high school grad- uates do not establish themselves on a career path until five or even ten years after high school graduation, and even then their options are often very limited. It is clear that a new, innovative system is required, one that will provide options for secondary students and those who have graduated. In our view, any school-to-work program should be an education program first, and a career training program second. This means that the program snould provide a strong academic foundation, because this foundation, or the lack of one, will affect every other aspect of the school-to-work program. The student must be the primary client, not the employer or the school. Through a combination of school-based learning, work-based learning, and con- necting activities to link the work experience to academic preparation, the school- to-work system described in S. 1361 would enable participants to obtain a high school diploma, a certificate indicating mastery of a cluster of occupational skills, and soon, it is hoped, a job in the individual's chosen field. Students participating in schcol-to-work programs would not be precluded from also pursuing a college de- gree. Many students in existing school-to-work programs go on to do iust that. A school-to-work program that is well-defined and well-run and is based on a strong commitment to education will provide students with an additional incentive for completing high school and will help them prepare to make their way in the in- creasingly complex world of work. A good school-to-work program can offer a poten- tial dropout a way to remain in school and graduate. Through a comprehensive ca- reer exploration component that is implemented in the early grades, a school-to- work program can help a student who is unsure of his or her goals to define them and start preparing for employment or additional education. To this enct, we note that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act calls for a work- place mentor but not a school site mentor. We would favor the addition of language providing for a school site mentor, who would be designated as the student's advo- cate. This individual would participate in the planning of the student's school-to- work transition plan and would monitor the student's progress. The school site men- tor would be chosen at the school level and could be a teacher, a counselor, or an- other education professional employed at the school. The school site mentor would also be closely involved, with the workplace mentor, in the connecting activities that would provide a bridge between the academic component and the work experience. The legislation should build upon education reforms now underway. S. 1361 ref- erences the Goals 2000: Educate America Act as a way of linking school -to -work to education reform. Such a linkage is essential, we believe, but the scope of school re- structuring goes beyond the one bill, Goals 2000. There are schools in which reform is taking place already, using a collaborative approach that encourages parents, stu- dents, ana staff to take an active role in designing and implementing the restructur- ing plan. With such models in mind, we would like to see language in the bill that would allow for curriculum development at the local level, not iust the state level. We would also be interested in expanding the bill to call for staff development, ade- quate planning time, and other capacity tmilding activities for teachers and for the specific presence of teachers and counselors on the rosters of the local partnerships. We believe these changes are crucial ones that would increase students' chances of receiving a strong academic foundation and participating in a school-to-work pro- gram that is fully integrated into the school program. Moreover, we view the establishment of a new school -to- work system as a com- plement to existing programs that are effective. In this regard, we would object to efforts to minimize the importance of the vocational and technical education pro- grams authorized by the Perkins Act. Many of these programs are already providing excellent career education at the local level, and they could provide the foundation for a local partnership's design for a school-to-work program. School-to-work designs that build onto good programs already in place would De among the most efficient and realistic. Such an effort is called for in S. 1361, and we strongly agree with that concept. Throughout the bill there are references to training of the professionals involved in school-to-work programs. The language doesn't specify who is to conduct the training, and it woula be helpful to add language requiring that grant applications should include specifics on the type(s) of training planned and who would conduct it. This would indicate recognition of the specific contribution that training by teach- ers, counselors, employers, and others could contribute to various aspects of school- to-work training and would enhance collaboration. 146 Evaluations of students performance and progress and of the overall school-to- work system are called for in S. 1361. We like the scope of the language providing for national evaluations of school-to-work programs because it seems to preclude the use of a single standardized test and it includes gaining specific information on ac- tual job placement rates. We would hope that the individual student evaluations would be consultative in nature, designed to provide for an ongoing review and prob- lem-solving process addressing each student's academic progress, work -based knowl- edge, and goals. Some language to expand the description may be warranted, to as- sure that a single standardized test would not be used to evaluate students. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act can bring about a fundamental and positive change in education and job training. The enactment of a comprehensive system of school-to-work transition programs will not only provide a bridge to well-paid em- ployment but will also enhance the nation's economic well-being. We look forward to working with the members of this committee to ensure that the laudable goals of the system are met. Statement of John E. Jacob Mr. Chairman, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Urban League (NUL), I am pleased to submit this statement for the record concerning the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 (S. 1361). Founded in 1910, the National Urban League is a nonprofit community -based so- cial service and civil rights organization headquartered in New York City, with 113 local affiliates in 34 States and the District of Columbia. The mission oi the Urban League is to assist African Americans in the achievement of social and economic equality. Since its founding, the National Urban League has been a prime participant in seeking solutions to the social and economic problems of the poor and disadvan- taged. In pursuing solutions to the problems that impact our communities, the Urban League has placed primary emphasis at the national level on policy and pro- gram initiatives that deal with education and career development, and employment and job training. Meeting The Challenge Of Global Economic Competition The National Urban League believes that all of our Nation's citizens must be pre- pared for a 21st Century workforce, and that the current challenges of a global econ- omy call for strategic investments in our human resources and physical infrastruc- ture. To this end, the League launched its Marshall Plan for America in 1991. In- cluded in the proposals pertaining to education and job training, our Marshall Plan calls for adoption of the recommendations by the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce outlined in its 1990 Report, "America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!" I was pleased to be a member of that Commission, which was chaired by Ira Magaziner and co-chaired by William Brock and Ray Marshall. The findings and recommendations of the Commission have contributed to the groundwork lor the Administration's examination of our national policies on how we prepare youth and adults to effectively compete in a global economy. Investing In Our Youth The Administration's proposal to transition our nation's youth from the academic to the world of work represents one key component in this renewed national drive towards upgrading the skills of the American workforce. By introducing the School- to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 (S. 1361), the Administration has set the process in motion. The National Urban League supports this bill as a progressive measure to train all of America's youth for a high-skill, high-wage job market. We are pleased that S. 1361 views the school-to-work concept not as a limited "tracking system" for non- college bound youth, but rather as a means for placing all youth on a "career" path with linkages between secondary and postsecondary education. This is especially critical for African-American youth. For example, according to the National Urban League's State of Black America 1993 report, much concern exists in the manner in which African-American children are treated by the public institutions charged with promoting their development. The report states that far too many of our youth receive highly negative messages in school, the most vital development institution outside the family. African-American students, for example, are disproportionately placed in lower academic tracks where they have limited experience with tasks in- volving critical and analytic thinking skills, and many remain in low track place- ments throughout their school career. It must also be noted that, according to the State of Black America 1992, a major determinant of college enrollment and graduation of African Americans is the avail- 147 ability of financial aid. Indeed, with a 1992 poverty rate of 33% among African Americana, access to higher education for one-third of our population is truly lim- ited. The combination of lower expectations in the public school system and a lack of financial access to postsecondary education places African-American youth in an unjust playing field in the pursuit of high-skill, high-wage careers. The Administra- tion's bill must insure that its vision of a career path for all of America's youth will in fact become a reality. Reaching Out-Of-School Youth One of the key recommendations from the Commission on the Skills of the Amer- ican Workforce pertained to addressing the needs of students who drop out of school. Indeed, the report stated that "turning our backs on those dropouts, as we do now, is tantamount to turning our backs on our future workforce." A national school-to- work transition program must therefore make a compelling difference in the lives of out-of-school youth. African-American youth are disproportionately represented in the dropout popu- lation. The Department of Education's recent report on dropout rates in the U.S. in- forms that in 1992, about 3.4 million persons in the United States ages 16 through 24 were high school dropouts, representing approximately 11% of all persons in this age group. The dropout rate for black 16- through 24-year-olds was 13.7%, compared with 7.7% for whites. And according to the skills Commission report, the dropout rate can reach as high as 50% in many of our inner cities. In addition to being disproportionately represented among school dropouts, Afri- can-American teenagers continue to be hard hit by joblessness. The official unem- ployment rate for black teenagers is over 40% or two-and-a-half times the rate for white teenagers. According to the National Urban League's Hidden Unemployment Index (HUI), however, approximately two-thirds (60.5%) of all black teenagers were jobless during the same period (the League's HUI factors in discouraged and invol- untary part-time workers). Therefore, we at the National Urban League are encouraged that the School-to- Work Opportunities Act of 1993 provides opportunity for states and local partner- ships to design and implement school-to-work programs for out=of-school youth. However, to assure that this population is effectively served, additional language is required in the legislation to establish a firm commitment throughout the bill to out-of-school youth. It is critical to insure that out-of-school youth are counted when states set out to "determine the number of projected program participants" when ap- plying for implementation grant funds. The League is also pleased to see that some recognition is given to the need for including community-based organizations in "the active and continued participation in the planning and development of the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system . . ." Community-based organizations serve as critical links for reaching out-of-school youth. To insure their inclusion at critical points in the school-to-work system, language pertaining to community-based organizations must require their inclusion as partners in a consistent manner throughout the legislation. Recommendations To strengthen S. 1361's capacity to reach out-of-school youth the National Urban League makes the following specific recommendations. We believe that incorporation of these recommendations will provide out-of-school youth with the same oppor- tunity as in-school youth to participate in a school-to-work system that can make the difference between a life of poverty and one of productive economic independ- ence. The Urban League further recommends that the Administration and the Congress bring synergy to all the programs that are currently serving out-of-school youth. That these programs, i.e. JTPA, Job Corps, JOBS, etc., be required to assure that the youth served will receive the same academic and occupational training stand- ards that will be established for in-school youth. [Additional material is retained in the files of the committee.] Statement of Gordon Raley Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Gordon Raley and I am Executive Director of the National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations and its affinity group, the National Collaboration for Youth (NCY). My statement supporting the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 is on behalf of the National Collaboration for Youth, based on a policy statement which has been reviewed by the national ex- ecutives of each of our member organizations. We enthusiastically support S. 1361 148 and hope that you will consider some perfecting changes as the bill moves through Committee and the Senate. The National Collaboration for Youth is a coalition of fifteen of the larger national youth serving organizations in the country who are each members of the National Assembly. Organized in 1973 around the issues of youth development, the Collabo- ration has become an active voice nationally for prevention services and positive youth development. Collectively, our organizations serve an estimate 30 million young people each year. The National Collaboration for Youth (NCY) believes that all youth should have access to effective training apprenticeships, community service, and productive em- ployment. Among the programs aspects we specifically support are: A. Education and training programs that provide and reinforce basic educational competencies, job skills, ana employ ability skills for all young people; B. A focus on equity involving women and girls; C. Coordination between the Job Training Partnership Act and community serv- ice; D. Expansion of services that link social services, juvenile justice, health care, education, and employment, especially applied experiences which make education relevant; E. Greater involvement of business and labor to link training as realistically as possible to the work place; F. Inclusion of youth from diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and disability backgrounds in job programs to provide them with opportunities for working col- laboratively to acquire specific skills; G. Federal leadership in the development of youth employment policies, programs, and funding with special attention paid to mentoring and peer-to-peer learning ex- periences; H. Reinstatement of a separate office within the Department of Labor for youth training and employment to oversee the implementation of youth programs and to assure that appropriate leadership and coordination are present to put in place a consistent ana coherent youth employment and training policy throughout the fed- eral government: and I. Recognition of national voluntary youth-serving organizations as effective out- reach, recruiting, and work-site resources for federal program implementation, since they can: (1) identify youth for employment and training programs (2) use volun- teers to achieve economies in the delivery of services; and (3) provide work sites and employment for disadvantaged youth. J. A specific focus on values and special needs of an emotional or behavioral na- ture which interfere with successful employment for youth. On the whole these program elements have been very well integrated into S. 1361 and the Committee and its staff are to be commended. We are especially pleased to see the bill's focus on education and training equity for young women and the attention to the needs of youth facing economic and other disadvantages. To further the goals and objectives of this bill and the Committee's excellent intent. We would however recommend a few perfecting changes. In general, we would suggest: 1) that the role of nonprofit human service organizations and especially youth service and youth development organizations be recognized not only as partners but also as potential work sites as part of school-to-work transition and career develop- ment; 2) that increased emphasis be paid to the needs of out-of-school youth who are not currently "students who may well have even greater need for reinvolvement in school and work based education; and 3) that in order to benefit youth who may be alienated from school, that attention be to informal education opportunities in the community; Specifically: In Section 3(aX4) after the words "public employers" insert the phrase "(including private, nonprofit employers)" and after the word "government, insert the word community-based youth serving organizations,". In Section 3 (a)(4) strike the word "students" and insert in lieu thereof the word "youth". In Section 3(aX8) after the word "motivate" but before the word "youth" insert the words "out-of-school" and before the word "dropouts" strike the words "low-achieving youth and". In Section 4(2) strike the word "students" each time it appears and insert in lieu thereof the word "youth". In Section 4(4)(E), after the word program at the end thereof but before the semi- colon insert the words "or college education". Amend section 4(5) to read as follows: 149 (5) the term "employer" means both public and private employers (including pri- vate nonprofit employers); In Section 4(8) strike the words "consist of employers" and insert in lieu thereof "consists of public and private employers (including private nonprofit employers)". In Section 103 strike the word "students" where it appears and insert in lieu thereof "youth". Strike Section 103(2). (Rationale: requiring "interested students" tojchoose a ca- reer major before 11th grade might prohibit some older "out-of-school" youth from coming back to school to participate.) In section 104 strike the word "student" where it appears and insert the word "youth". m . In section 202 (bX3) strike the word "employers" and insert in lieu thereof the words "public and private employers (including nonprofit employers)" and before the words business associations insert the words "nonprofit youth serving organiza- tions,". In section 202(bX2) strike the word "employers" and insert in lieu thereof "public and private employers (including nonprofit employers). In section 202(bX4) insert after the word "business" the words "and community- based youth serving organizations". Insection 202(bX10) strike the words "and dropouts" and insert in lieu thereof dropouts and other youth.". In Section 212 strike the word "employers" each time it appears and insert^in lieu thereof "public and private employers (including private nonprofit employers)". In section 212(bX4) strike the word "employers" and insert in lieu thereof the words "public and private employers (including nonprofit employers)" and before the words business associations insert the words "nonprofit youth serving organiza- tions,". Insection 212(b)(7) strike the word "students" and insert the word "youth . Amend Section 212(bX9) to read as follows: (9) describe how the State will ensure opportunities for out-of-school youth, youth with disabilities, youth under the jurisdiction of the State foster care system includ- ing those who may have "aged out of such system, homeless youth, and former stu- dents who have dropped out of school to participate in School -to-Work Opportunities programs; In Section 212(gXD(C) strike the word "students" and insert in lieu thereof "youth". In Section 212(gX2XF) strike the words "at-risk and low achieving students^ and insert in lieu thereof "out-of-school youth and youth facing economic challenges". In Section 212(gX2) add new subsections K) and (L) to read as follows: (K) assisting partnerships to include youth from diverse racial, ethnic, socio-eco- nomic, and disability backgrounds in School-to-Work programs; and (L) involving voluntary youth-serving organizations in (i) identifying out-of-school youth for School-to-Work programs, (ii) providing work sites and traming sites for youth as part of School-to-Work Opportunities programs, and (iii) providing informal education activities relevant to the purposes of this Act. Statement of John Austin integrating school and the workplace; — history and context of our local EFFORTS In the old workplace, or the "Taylorist" mass production environment, workers were often treated like machines — asked to do simple tasks over and over. Clearly this was the case in Flint and the General Motors auto production environment that dominated the local economy for the past 50 years. Our community relied on this "safety valve" for unskilled workers. Parents and educators could always shunt the non-achievers (the non-college bound) to opportunities at the plant. The result was that educators, along with parents and students, resisted linking education too closely with a workplace that did not nurture or appreciate complex thinking skills, nor provide opportunities for personal growth and lifelong learning. As a result, vo- cational education and technical training were demeaned — viewed as a dumping ground for kids who could not make it in the liberal arts-based college and profes- sional oriented program. Well, the old workplace is disappearing fast, especially fast in Flint and Genesee County. This change, a change to a "high performance" work environment is unfold- ing as we speak at General Motors and throughout our employer community. What is often not understood is that the changes in work at GM and other employers is leading to a convergence of the skills and abilities demanded by employers with 77-136 0-94-6 150 those desired by educators, parents, and others who care about the intellectual nourishment and "well-roundedness" of a young person's education. Today, in a growing number of workplaces, employers need motivated, versatile, well-educated individuals with skills in communication, teamwork, problem-solving, leadership, and analysis. Workers who are associates and partners with manage- ment in organizing, directing, and ensuring quality in a customer-driven production and service environment. Workers with a strong base of complex higher-order skills, and increasingly high levels of technical facility in their areas of specialization. Indi- viduals who can adapt to changing technology, and change job roles and careers sev- eral times during the course oftheir lives. But, we have left in place the same educational system. A system that mass produces learning, through "time in seat" work and standard- ized tests. A system that waits until young people leave school, or college, before introducing them to the dynamics of the real workplace. A system that helps the motivated, college-bound, and those with "special needs", but ignores, or gives up on the middle 70% of the student population. As the bipartisan National Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce said in their 1990 report, "America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!": America may have the worst school-to-work transition system of any advanced in- dustrial country. Students who know few adults to help them get their first job are left to sink or swim. Because employers have not set training standards, few stu- dents can be sure that there is a market for the courses they pursue. This fact has become increasingly clear in Flint and Genesee County, and has led directly to our efforts to better connect the skills and preparation employers need with the educational experience of our young people. Numerous studies and analyses' detail and bemoan the historical gulf that exists between school and the workplace (ETS: From School to Work, The Neglected Ma- jority, Workforce 2000, etc.). Education in America for most students is divorced from active engagement with the applied skills needed in the workplace, and planned preparation for work. This is in sharp contrast to competitor nations. According to Bill Daggett, of the International Center for Leadership in Edu- cation— who spoke recently in Flint to county educators and employers — the Euro- pean community and Asian nations are moving now to increase requirements for all students in broad skill and subject arenas essential to the new workplace. Up to four years of applied physics, four years of technical reading and writing, and four years of applied math focusing on measurement, statistics and probability, are the norm in these countries. In Germany, 70% of the future workforce is engaged in structured apprenticeships while in high school — apprenticeships that connect classroom learning to applied work tasks, and open doors to high-skill, high-wage future employment opportuni- ties. And as we learned from visits to and from representatives of the German dual- system, there is much more flexibility to change "tracks" and indeed it is increas- ingly common to see the apprenticeship, university, and technical college pathways blending together than is commonly believed. Our U.S. system is neither revamping curriculum to reflect new workplace demands, nor building in opportunities for students to marry applied learning to tradi- tional study of theoretical or "academic" disciplines. Our "system" relies on outdated proxies to link schools and the workplace. Young people go through high school and college and get a diploma — a diploma that is sup- posed to mean something to employers. But employers can't bank on the diploma to tell them anything really useful about skill levels. So they rely on other proxies: age, marital status, experience in a number of other jobs, their own employment tests — before they risk raring. And they still don't get recruits with the attributes they need. Meanwhile, the number of jobs for "unskilled workers" is decreasing rapidly, while the number of jobs requiring complex and specialized technical training is increas- ing. In 1950, 60% of occupations could be filled by "unskilled" workers. By 1995, that percentage will have shrunk to just 15% — with positions requiring technically trained workers increasing to 45% of job occupations, and professional preparation and degrees making up the other 40% of the workforce. Flint is not divorced from these national trends, our employers are setting in- creasingly higher standards for preparation, and creating a work force whose mix of skills and education needs to be much higher than it was 30 or even 5 years ago. By the year 2000, 52% of all jobs will require one or more years of post-secondary technical or professional training; but right now less than 30% of Genesee County 151 young people graduate from a technical, associates, or baccalaureate degree pro- gram. Most of our students, and teachers for that matter, are still cut off from these changes. Education for the vast majority of students (the now infamous "Forgotten HalT) is unmotivating and irrelevant — lacking connection to any real opportunities or expectations in the labor market. A lucky few get good coop work opportunities while in high school (only 700 stu- dents out of 20,000 high schoolers in Genesee County). Locally, the quality of co- ops various tremendously; most are at fast-food restaurants. Our current education system fails most students; the exceptions being the elite college-track students, who move successfully into the professional ranks, and the tenacious and lucky technically oriented student who puts up with being viewed as a "second-class" citizen in order to pursue a technical education leading to market- able skills. As the recent report of the Michigan Commission on Career and Technical Edu- cation put it: "We must redefine the purpose of education. The central purpose of our education system must be to provide all students with the education, skills and training need- ed to enable them to make a seamless transition from high school to further edu- cation and the world of work." HOW DO WE DO BETTER? THE GENESEE COUNTY EXPERIENCE In Genesee County we are organizing our. employer community to articulate dear- ly how local education and training institutions can help meet the demands of the *4iew workplace". Then we must work together — employers, schools, and post-sec- ondary institutions — to meet those demands. Genesee County has not waited for state and national leadership, but has orga- nized itself for comparative advantage in a very competitive world marketplace. We are putting in place a workforce development system, in particular, a school -to -work transition system, that will fuel our economic growth, and enable Flint area young people to prepare for good job opportunities in the area, or around the world. Our employers are demanding a different set of basic skills from all workers, and a more specialized set of skills for particular occupations. As we began our efforts several years ago to improve the school to work transition on our community we took two tracks: 1) Set and integrate a much higher threshold of generic skills into the academic preparation of all our young people, and; 2) Develop integrated career paths, or career ladder programs in broad occupa- tional clusters, that span secondary and post-secondary education to the workplace. As we began our work we convened employers and higher education institutions around these two goals. In dealing with the former, we examined employability skills frameworks that had previously been developed and took as our starting point The Secretary of Labor's Commission on Necessary Skills (SCANS) as the most ap- propriate skill framework — as determined by our local employers. SCANs defines key skill arenas as: Foundation skills in: Basics: reading, writing, mathematics, speaking, & listening; Thinking skills: problem-solving, reasoning; and Personal qualities: self manage- ment, responsibility. Underpinning five competencies: Resource management; Interpersonal skills; In- formation management; Systems understanding and management; and Techno- logical facility. We modified this framework based on local employer needs and expectations and developed examples of how these skill sets could be developed and represented by students to employers. Working with area schools districts, we have encouraged the infusion of these skills into the outcome setting, curriculum planning, and student portfolio development process — now required for all secondary school students in Michigan. Area employers are active in articulating the extent to which these new skills are essential in their evolving workplaces. Employers are working with school districts as they engage in their own school improvement process to integrate these higher order generic competencies into curriculum for all students. In addressing our second and complementary school to work agenda— the develop- ment and spread of structured career paths programs in broad occupational clusters, we organized processes that would lead to a growing network of career path pro- grams in key economic sectors. We pulled together employers, higher educators, K- 12 and vocational system working groups in manufacturing, health care, business and financial services, and in government/public service. We fostered new awareness 152 of models for school to work transition (tech-prep, career academies, youth appren- ticeship). We involved teachers, employers, and administrators from all levels in ex- amining these models, as well as local needs and opportunities. Our explicit goal was to nurture the development of the strongest variants of school to work transition we could possibly muster — initiatives that combined many or most of the following elements in an organized way for a growing strata of school students: combine academic and "work -based learning" provide a clear continuum of course and experiential activities from secondary through post-secondary education — on to the workplace, a "structured ladder of career advancement" provide mechanisms and forums for employers to clearly define to schools and higher education institutions the competencies they require of successful em- f>loyees — driven by the long-term workforce skill needs of high performance inns lead to a degree, credential or skill set that is accepted in the labor marketplace career pathways that are diverse, flexible, and accessible to a wide variety of students built on formal and durable partnerships between schools, employers, and tech- nical and postsecondary institutions involve support services such as counseling, and career planning, and career ex- ploration early in students career, preferably beginning in elementary and mid- dle school integrate academic and vocational education, in more powerful "applied learn- ing" We sought and are increasingly successful in developing broad scale investment from employers and educators in the development of these initiatives. We have stat- ed and acted on the premise that the development of strong school to work programs involves a real quid pro quo between area firms and educators. Firms are being asked to buy into much more organized and structured youth development initia- tives, that involve them in content development and worksite learning. In return, educators are being asked to.revise content, curriculum, course progression, school organization, and create new interdisciplinary frameworks for implementing career path programs. We are also trying hard through the Roundtable to fold together existing streams of funding and policy agendas that can be used to build school to work into the mainstream of the educational experience. This includes steering tech-prep, voca- tional, JTPA1 and other funding sources into the development of these school to work initiatives. The result today is that Genesee County has an increasingly comprehensive game plan for the development of structured career paths within the school systems of the county to improve education and better connect with career and workplace demands. This effort pulls together employers, our higher education institutions and the school systems, along with funding streams from tech-prep, JTPA and other sources to support development of structured school-to-career initiatives in manufacturing, health care, financial/business services, public service and other career areas. Youth apprenticeship, career academies, and tech-prep models are being promoted and adapted to meet the needs of our local situation. A manufacturing career path consortia, AMTEC (Agile Manufacturing Technology Education Consortia) involves all 21 school districts, higher education and voca- tional schools, GM, UAW, and local employers in the implementation of manufactur- ing career paths county-wide. These manufacturing career paths build on our strong base and economic development agenda linked to high-value added manufacturing and supportive service industries, and tie together existing programs with new de- velopments in a comprehensive manufacturing oriented career preparatory initia- tive. This initiative already includes several proven programs for particular occupa- tional niches — including the MTP program (Manufacturing Technology Partnership) oriented towards skilled trades preparation (awarded a US Department of Labor Youth Apprenticeship grant — described in seperate testimony), and Project Draft, an integrated CAD/design program — proven successful in Oakland and Macomb Coun- ties of Michigan, which nave similar concentrations of auto related design firms, and being spearheaded by Mott Community College locally. Best-practice Health and Financial Services career paths are being developed in our major high school and vocational systems, tied directly to employer and higher 153 education demands and programs. For example, our area vocational center, the Gen- esee Area Skill Center (GASC) had a long-standing "Careers in Health" program that involved class work and work -based learning, for 11th and 12th graders. Through our efforts, additional hospitals are partnering with the GASC, and the program is developing new articulation arrangements with area post-secondary in- stitutions, and more aggressive marketing and outreach (see seperate testimony). Similary, business and financial services vocational programs in several area high school systems, are being expanded towards a career academy model — integrating mainline academic courses into the program, involving employers in development of course content and work -based learning experiences, and connecting these programs with offerings at higher education institutions. A consortium of school-linked com- munity service initiatives has also been developed to add quality and content to community service and service learning activities in the county. While we have made much headway, we have much to do. The most fundamental challenge is to truly build a system that integrates school to work initiatives into the educational mainstream. Such a system will require new attitudes and behavior on the part of employers, students, parents, teachers and community leaders. In fact, we have found that an essential ingredient in developing school to work initiatives is persuading the affected constituencies that such an agenda is both es- sential and desirable. Essential if we are to keep and create jobs, and enjoy a qual- ity of life in the Genesee County community. Desirable as a means to promote more profound learning and understanding on the part of students, no matter what career they pursue. Our broad scale efforts at public education in Genesee County, through the media, school and parent meetings, among many means, are an essential component of our efforts. Working with the Public Agenda Foundation, we are continuing a campaign called Crisis in the Workforce. A campaign dedicated to helping the community un- derstand the urgency of educational change, and the directions we must take — in- cluding building a better school to work transition system — if we are to compete in the global marketplace. SCHOOL TO WORK SYSTEM BUILDING As indicated, we are very supportive of national and state efforts to build a strong school to work system that can complement and support our local efforts. Some spe- cific comments relative to the concept being proposed by the Administration in this regard include: Very supportive of content of the Administration proposal which matches very nicely with our local agenda — integrating school-based and work -based learning, cre- ating a career-oriented course progression, and articulation, providing support serv- ices such as counseling and career exploration, and seeking to integrate academic and vocational programming. We clearly believe work -based learning components mean a stronger program, but this requirement is very difficult to realize without faster private sector changes (or incentives to drive change) that see work -based learning for young people as a stra- tegic way firms build their future workforce. In other words many firms will partici- pate in a new style school to work program, not out of their selfish interests, but out of goodwill and a desire to change education. The two combined are the most powerful levers for change We are somewhat concerned about the extent to which states will or will not do what we believe they should and must — i.e.; use new dollars and federal agenda to wrap together money and agenda already flowing through tech-prep, vocational pro- grams, JTPA youth, apprenticeships and other programs; to promote a unified ap- proach to school to work transition, both statewide and locally. We cannot afford another disconnected initiative that has only marginal impact on the existing systems. If this were to happen the Alternative is the federal "ven- ture capital" could get segmented and the effort evaporate after several years. We are concerned, about where the proper level of federalism for skill standards and credential development resides. In building school to work programs, our bias is to build local (labor market) systems that tie partners together in real ways, but guarantee program completers have state or nationally recognized degree, credential or skill award that is transactional; i.e. helps get a job in labor market. The labor market is this sense can only be a national one If we are to have a national school to work "system", we should have both com- mon substantive as well as organizational elements to programs across states and localities-including governance. Here the insistence on a common frame for regional labor market consortia (such as local Employment and Training Boards, PICs, 154 LEA's) etc. — will ensure this does not become just one other totally scattered initia- tive. Vanguard communities such as our own that have a system to move school-to- work forward should not have to wait on the state, but we endorse the reserve of significant dollars for states — if they show how they will use existing funding streams more effectively to support the school to work agenda. Creating this system demands new responsibilities and change on the part of each of us. What we have said in Genesee County is that: Employers must: Implement "high-performance" workplaces in their organizations, workplaces that seek competitive advantage through quality and service, and that require highly skilled personnel; Make workforce development a part of company strategic thinking and planning. This means anticipating workforce skill needs of the future, and .partnering with local education and training institutions to meet those needs. This means making continuous education a requirement of ongoing employment; Agree to help define "baseline" or threshold skills you want to see the K-12 sys- tem instill in students. Agree to use a "portfolio" or similar mechanism representing those skills in hiring and interviewing; Define the particular skills and education preparation required by your organiza- tion. Set standards, and work with area education and training institutions to cre- ate career pathways (including co-op, apprenticeship, internship, and externship po- sitions) for students from high school, extending through post-secondary institu- tions. Building a true school to work system will require significant will and long term commitment at all levels. Locally we have done our best to develop such a system — so our young people learn and succeed and our local community thrives. We believe such a system requires serious changes on the part of all the key stakeholders in education. As we have defined our goals, we see the nature of the changes as fol- lows: Schools and Higher Education must: Accept preparation for work as a major role of education; and Employees return to school throughout their work lives to reedu- cate themselves. Working together, we can create a better system of linking our educational system with the real demands of the labor market. This can only increase the opportunity our young people have to work and prosper in Genesee County. Working together, Genesee County is Dreaking new ground is a leader in creating a functioning workforce development system — giving us a leg up in a competitive international marketplace. Our people, our children, are the only resource that can't be easily transported or replaced. It's time to make our "people system" second to none. Statement of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters The International Brotherhood of Teamsters appreciates the opportunity to present written testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity for the hearings held September 28th and October 13th of the 1993 cal- endar year. SUMMARY POINTS That curriculum and activities engage students in learning about the laws, issues and rights that apply to the workplace; and, That the International Brotherhood of Teamsters can play a major role in crafting this program because of its 1.5 million members located in both public and private sectors, in miscellaneous industries from trucking and warehousing to health care and manufacturing. LEARNING FROM PROGRAMS IN EXISTENCE Even in the cases of model school-to-work programming currently underway, there are many problems that need to be addressed. Both the Bank of America program in San Francisco and the work-study initiative in St. Louis find students spending the majority of their time either photocopying or sitting alone, idle. There is no real educational value to this exercise in either case. Employers participating in school-to-work need to be willing to provide meaning- ful opportunities to students well beyond the simple tasks that are typically as- signed to student interns. An employer has to guide students in a more progressive 155 fashion, where students start out "pushing the broom" and move on to more difficult tasks requiring greater skills, autonomy and decision making capability. Other problems plague school-to-work programs. The Northern Nevada Teamsters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Program illustrates equipment access as a con- cern. "Our biggest problem is . . . forcing the employers to vary the training, and to move our apprentice to different equipment on a regular basis," says Carl Immoss, LU 533 Business Representative in response to a Teamster training sur- vey. In the national school-to-Work program, employers must be willing to provide access and learning on all equipment so that students gain experience on various equipment, systems and technologies. LABOR'S concerns This Congress has an opportunity to create the most innovative school-to-work program ever, learning from the typical problems that arise when we attempt to place students in real work environments. But, to establish a program that takes all parties' concerns into consideration, Congress needs to hear and act upon labor's voice which often takes a backseat to that ofthe employer's. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has already presented public com- ments to the U.S. Department of Labor regarding its concerns. These comments mirror and build upon the AFL-CIO's National Training Policy, as adopted by the AFL-CIO's Executive Council in May 1993. First, this Union promotes the impor- tance of basic skills training so that rigorous education standards are not sacrificed to experiential learning. Second, there is no need for duplication of efforts. Appren- ticeship and private sector training programs should receive more support and fund- ing because these programs produce students with marketable skills. Third, this Union favors decentralization, giving local jurisdictions authority to craft their own school -to -work programs while adhering to strict quality standards. Fourth, it is im- f)ortant that these programs do not result in displacement or deteriorate the wage evels within industries. Fifth, health and safety is a priority area for this Union. We assert that the employer is responsible for creating and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace. Sixth, consortiums established to design and implement school- to-work need to be comprised of all players: organized labor, educators, employers, government officials and students. If organized labor is overlooked, the programs suffer from a one-sided view of the workplace. Seventh, collective bargaining agree- ments cannot be circumvented through the school-to-work process. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS Congress needs to build certain provisions into these programs and curriculum. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters suggests that school-to-work programs: (1) involve only those employers willing to lead a student through basic and ad- vanced skill and technical knowledge areas, which would include access to the equipment, systems and technologies used in the workplace; (2) include curriculum that emphasizes strong academics and meaningful work; (3) integrate into the cur- riculum the laws issues and rights that apply to the workplace and industry; and, (4) addresses labor's concerns as written in the AFL-CIO National Training Policy. The Teamsters wishes to spotlight Recommendation #3 above. Students should learn more than just the skills and knowledge required in a particular job or indus- try. They should be exposed to the laws, issues and rights impacting workers, em- ployers and the broader community. Substantive curriculum could spotlight: workplace health and safety; industry- specific regulations; environmental laws, workers rights, etc. To study a job or career path in absence of full understanding of the work envi- ronment gives the student an unrealistic view of the role of workers, employers, unions and governmental agencies. School-to-work curriculum must allow explo- ration of all the frameworks mat govern the way work is conducted today. CURRICULUM EXAMPLE: "TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS" The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents members in a number of core industries. One of the areas of concentration is transportation. We represent more than more than 200,000 members in the trucking industry. 160,000 Teamster members work for United Parcel Service. 9,000 flight attendants for Northwest Air- lines and thousands of others in the airline industry are Teamster members. Our connection to transportation could produce exemplary partnerships giving students access to high growth industries. Our vision for model curriculum for a career in transportation includes: 156 Module One: History & Development of the Transportation Industry Overview of surface transportation and airlines Systems management: logistics, costing, laws and regulations Environmental concerns Role of public policy in the transportation industry Major issues affecting transportation today Module Two: Careers in Transportation Securing a job in the industry: skill and knowledge base requirements Retaining a job in the industry: retraining efforts Career paths within industry Module Three: Externship in Industry Students either select among major industries (freight, small package delivery, airline, rail) or move across industry lines Developing linkages throughout the program that integrates theory and practice AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT The critical change the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has form S. 1361 reads as follows: (recommended text is italic) Sec. 103. "The school-based learning component of a School-to-Work Opportunities program shall include— (3) a program of study . . . Educate America Act, meet the requirements necessary for a student to earn a skill certificate, and curriculum and activities that engage students in learning about a ranged workplace rights, laws and issues and their connection to the community; . . ." Sec. 202(cX8). Funds awarded for state development activities shall be expended for the following activities, including (8) "designing challenging curriculum, includ- ing curriculum and activities that engage students in learning about a rage of work- place rights, laws and issues and their connection to the community." Sec. 212(c)(5). Federal funds shall be expended by a State only for activities which may include "designing or adapting model curricula that can be used to integrate academic and vocational learning, school-based and work -based learning, secondary and post-secondary education, and that engage students in learning about a range of workplace rights, laws and issues and their connection to the community;" CONCLUSION The International Brotherhood of Teamsters applauds this Congress for setting the stage for a National School-To-Work initiative. But, we caution against relying, in whole, on existing models for ways to carry out these programs. For example, what is missing from most school-to-work programs is a broader perspective. Discus- sion of the laws, issues and rights impacting the workplace needs to be included. Further, most employers have been reluctant to make meaningful opportunities available to students; instead, interns are relegated to simple tasks. Finally, the ab- sence of labor's input from most school-to-work transition programs shows a heavy- handed corporate message that does not give students full knowledge of all the par- ties in the marketplace. Students do not come away from these programs under- standing the role of organized labor, employers, government and the community. Congress has at its fingertips an opportunities to draw all parties into crafting a state-of-the-art program that would guide localities on ways to design curriculum giving students the most comprehensive school-to-work transition opportunities ever. What the Teamsters Union and other voices within organized labor have to offer is critical to making sure the student receives the best learning experience pos- sible. Thank you for giving the International Brotherhood of Teamsters an opportunity to share its perspective with this subcommittee. [Additional material is retained in committee files.] Statement of Girls Incorporated Girls Incorporated (formerly Girls Clubs of America) is a national youth organiza- tion that has been providing direct service to school-age girls in communities throughout our country for almost fifty years. The organization has long been con- cerned with the preparation of girls and young women for economic independence and viable employment. Girls Incorporated has taken a lead in developing and eval- uating innovative programs. Our commitment to employment and training programs for girls and young women is emphasized by adoption of our policy statement on 157 employment in 1983, revised by the Girls Incorporated National Council on April 25, 1992: Every girl growing up today must be employable to survive. Girls Incor- porated is committed to achieving equal access to preparation for employment and to jobs; to equal pay for work of comparable value; and to equal opportuni- ties for advancement. This equality should exist in law and in practice. In sup- port of this policy, Girls Incorporated will continue to develop information, pro- grams, and policies on employment issues for girls. Today's girls grow up in an inequitable world where gender discrimination limits their opportunities, experiences and accomplishments. The School-to-Work Opportu- nities Act has the potential to improve the school-to-work transition for all young people. However, to make a difference in the lives of our nation's 22 million girls, it is crucial that their special needs be targeted. At our National Resource Center we conduct research and collect information to develop the programs, resources, settings and principles that best enable girls to overcome discrimination and other barriers to gender equity. Based on this expertise and the expertise developed through our experience of direct service, programming and advocacy for girls, we are submitting this statement to bring several points to your attention. 1. Inclusion of informal education in initiatives and programs: In addition to the formal education system, a significant amoupt of education takes place in the com- munity— in Girls Incorporatea centers, museums, settlement houses and other com- munity-based settings. A study released by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent De- velopment reported that between 60 and 80 percent of young adolescents participate in at least one non-school activity sponsored by public or nonprofit agencies. Fur- thermore, it stated that almost 40 percent of adolescents' waking hours are discre- tionary compared to the 30 percent they spend in school (Carnegie, 1992). Con- sequently, the informal education that takes place in non-school settings can provide a powerful tool for helping young people make the school-to-work transition. Indeed many such organizations have expertise developed over decades of providing em- ployability training, job shadowing, etc. In addition, informal education settings are often the singular resource for young people who are not enrolled in school. We strongly recommend the inclusion of community-based organizations for initia- tives and funding under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 so that young people will benefit from the expertise of youth organizations that have spent years developing their programs. 2. Stafftraining and development: The recent AAUW report, How Schools Short- change Girls, brought the barriers girls face in school to national attention. The re- port demonstrated that girls do not receive the same quality or quantity of edu- cation as boys and that there is a significant difference in their educational out- comes. Without specific training and consistent monitoring, adults will continue to deliver messages that perpetuate sex stereotypes and inequities. We have found that many professionals need training to increase their awareness of gender inequi- ties and to develop environments that are positive for girls. Further, Girls Incor- porated has developed the capacity to deliver training on gender equity issues and on providing a positive environment for girls whatever the setting. This expertise should be utilized in implementing the school-to-work program. 3. Allocation of funds for sharing and replicating existing programs: Girls Incor- porated programs are based on research about what girls need and what is effective in meeting those needs. Our programs are having a national impact in schools, camps, museums and other community-based organizations. a. Operation SMART is our program to encourage and involve more girls in Science, Math And Relevant Technology. Most jobs require a background in math and science, yet many girls drop out of these critical fields even before they reach their teens. Girls Incorporated has produced model programs and materials for girls 6-18 that enable Girls Incorporated centers, other agencies, science centers and schools to offer informal, hands-on science education programs. Operation SMART encourages girls to explore the world around them, to take things apart, to be criti- cal and skeptical thinkers, to observe and estimate and above all to question. The firogram combines hands-on activities and career development with a conscious ecus on equity, a commitment to sharing decision-making with girls and opportuni- ties for girls to take action in their communities around science- and technology-re- lated issues.This prepares girls for jobs out of the low-wage track of the traditional clerical and personal services fields. b. Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy helps girls ages 9-18 clarify values with par- ents, learn assertiveness and resistance skills, develop aspirations for education and career and, for sexually active girls, learn about and obtain contraceptive tech- 158 nology. The results of our research on this program were reported in Truth, Trust and Technology. Rigorous evaluation demonstrated that consistent participants in programs for younger girls were half as likely to have sexual intercourse for the first time as nonparticipants; and participants in programs for older girls were less likely to become pregnant than nonparticipants. There is evidence that early pregnancy is significantly related to school drop out among pregnant and parenting teens. Eighty percent of teen mothers drop out and only 56 percent ever graduate from high school. Giving girls the information and skills to avoid early pregnancy must be an important component of any program to increase girls' success in making a smooth school-to-work transition. c. Choices is a curriculum and workbook series for young women and men ages 14-20. The program utilizes thought-provoking exercises to help young people deter- mine both their goals and realistic plans for reaching them. Choices projects young people into the future to identify and develop the skills and attitudes that will be required for career and life satisfaction. Girls Incorporated and our affiliates have been asked to provide these programs in schools and to train counselors and teachers in how to administer them. Such curriculum need not be reinvented.The legislation needs to appropriate funds for training staff to implement informal education programs, such as those offered by Girls Incorporated, that have demonstrated their positive impact on young people. 4. Equity: It is important that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act go beyond the legally conceived notions of equity as equal opportunity. Elizabeth Fennema makes useful distinctions between equity of access, equity of treatment and equity of outcome. Equity of access means, at least, equal opportunity to participate in a program. Access is far more than not excluding girls and young women deliberately. Equity of treatment implies that girls receive at least the same level and quality of attention and resources as do boys — it has been well documented that this is not the case in most classrooms and in other settings. Equity of treatment for girls, as a group that has been historically excluded, may include different or additional pro- gram components to compensate for the opportunities denied. Equity of outcome measures whether the gap between females and males in achievement, confidence, persistence and participation has been eliminated or significantly reduced. This con- cept should appear appropriately in the legislation. 5. Inclusion of out-of-school youth: The transition from school to work is a difficult time for all young people. However, it is particularly challenging for those that are not enrolled in school. Provision must be made to ensure that this group receives all services and that the organizations that work with them — often community- based organizations — be included in all initiatives and funding. We find little or no mention of this group of out-of-school youth in the legislation. This omission must be corrected. 6. Support services: Research studies have demonstrated the value of offering post-program support services for a period of time after job placement. This is a crit- ical juncture in the school-to-work transition. Staff can assist participants in dealing with questions, concerns or problems that arise at their job. This may also be help- ful in determining components that are missing from the program. Youth employ- ment organizations have developed an expertise in offering this type of support over the past two decades. 7. Data collection: We want to comment explicitly on the importance of including sex as a background characteristic in post-program research of participants. We es- tablished the Girls Incorporated National Resource Center in Indianapolis in 1981 in specific response to the startling lack of information about girls. Many organiza- tions and agencies do not collect, analyze and report data by sex. We have raised this problem in many legislative contexts over the past two decades and wrestled with it as the nation's leading source of information about girls. Participant infor- mation needs to be collected, analyzed and cross-tabulated by sex, race, ethnicity, disability and socioeconomic status whenever feasible. This additional information is essential to monitoring progress in closing the gap in opportunities, treatment, experiences and outcomes for girls and women. More knowledge about the effective- ness of programs can lead to more efficient use of tax dollars. Girls Incorporated applauds the Administration for recognizing the urgency of this important social issue and Congress for acting on it so swiftly. We submit these comments in support of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 and in hope that our 20 years of experience in the youth employment field will help to shape the Act in such a way as to insure its success and benefit all young Americans. 159 Statement of Erik Beyer Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Erik Beyer, President of the National Association of State Councils on Vocational Education (NASCOVE). With me today is Cecil Underwood, former governor of West Virginia and Vice President of the National Association of State Councils on Vocational Education. As President of [NASCOVE], I am here today to express our strong support for the School-to- Work Opportunities initiatives. As a businessman, I know I speak for my colleagues on State Councils across the nation when I say we have waited years for a national education initiative which truly reflects the needs of employers and students. Ever since I served in the Senate of the State of Nevada, I have felt it unfortunate that Congressional hearings often are so limited in terms of access that legislation which holds great potential to serve our needs in the states is allowed to miss the mark. I strongly believe that the 20 years of evaluation and advice on the delivery of vocational education, which is represented in the reports and membership of the State Councils on Vocational Education (SCOVE), could benefit the Committee and their staff in deliberation on bills like the School-to- Work Opportunities Act. The School -to -Work Opportunities Act holds great promise for both employers and the present and future generations of students. The Act reflects the very best of pro- Eam components from vocational and technical education past and current, and iks these components to a new understanding of the true purpose of a "Public" education system, the preparation of all citizens to contribute to society. SCOVEs have been an integral part of the evaluation and oversight of vocational education since 1968. A review of State Council reports clearly indicates that as early as 1970 there was a strong concern for career guidance, program articulation, student placement, expansion of work experience opportunities, evaluation and tracking of program completers, all components of the School-to- Work Opportunities Act. Our collective years of experience tell us that four issues must be addressed in amendments: 1. The role of the state and local boards of education must be strengthened in this bill if you expect long-term commitment to the reform objectives. The infrastructure of educational management must be motivated to make system wide change before federal programs underwriting planning and program establishment will work long term. If state and local management of the educational system is not involved and empowered through federal legislation, there will be little continuing comprehensive change. The result will be that in many districts commitment to reform will not out- last the federal funds. 2. Third-party oversight, involving representatives of the private and public sec- tors, must be a viable part of the school-to-work initiative at the state and local lev- els. Partnerships among businesses, labor organizations, service organizations, schools and students must become a cohesive force directed toward achieving a com- mon goal: gainful employment and educational advancement for the student. The third-party evaluation function must remain objective. As a result of their role in the dispensation of funds, Private Industry Council members, after a short period of time, became a structural part of the JTPA community, and their evaluation pro- spective and oversight became biased. The same becomes true of contractors and on- the-job training providers because they receive the funds dispensed by their col- leagues. 3. Vocational student organizations have become an integral part of a comprehen- sive employment education program. Leadership, and plain good citizenship, as de- veloped through vocational student organizations, is critical to the 21st century workplace. Cooperative skills, teamwork, and all of the other personal skills like re- liability, motivation, occupational communication and many others are the founda- tion of student organizations. If school-to-work and school-to-school transition is to be successful, vocational student organizations must have a prominent place in the language of the Bill. 4. Without the means of continuing their education, adults will, in fact, find them- selves without the occupational and technical skills necessary to compete either in professional or technical jobs of the future. The recent introduction of HR 2493 Na- tional Workforce Preparation and Development Reform Act addresses our concern of services to the adult populations assuming that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the National Workforce Preparation and Development Reform Act are com- panion legislation. Remember, as it now stands, this Act establishes school-to-work financially as a year-to-year "project." The issue is not the value of the program, but the ability of state and local educational resources to pick up the responsibilities when federal funds are no longer available. As a past state legislator serving on the Senate Fi- 160 nance Committee and being involved with the National Conference of State Legisla- tors, I was always concerned when a federal project-oriented program came into our state, and we were expected to pick it up when the federal funds ran out. The suc- cess or failure of this legislation in reforming the way young people are brought into the labor force is heavily dependent upon the ability of Congress to include all state and local players. At some later point in time it may become necessary to consider a percentage set-aside in each of the education and training acts to assure that the national concern for school-to-work reform is institutionalized. Statement of Nancye M. Combs Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee members, I am Nancye M. Combs, President of HR Enterprise, Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky, and Chairwoman of the Private Industry Council of Louisville and Jefferson County. I submit this tes- timony today in my capacity as a member of the Executive Committee of the Louis- ville Education and Employment Partnership. We are indeed pleased and honored to have this opportunity to provide you information regarding various school-to-work transition activities presently underway in the Louisville metropolitan area, and to comment on S.1361, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993, currently pend- ingbefore your Subcommittee. The Louisville Education and Employment Partnership ("LEEP'), launched over five years ago, is a close-knit collaboration involving seven key partners sharing re- sponsibility for developing, funding and guiding the initiative: the City of Louisville, Jefferson County Government, the Jefferson County Public Schools, the Private In- dustry Council of Louisville and Jefferson County, the Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, Metro United Way and the Greater Louisville Economic Development Partnership. The respective leaders of these partner organizations form the nucleus of LEEPs Executive Committee, which is augmented by the addition of several at- large members, including the President of the University of Louisville. This testi- mony, therefore, is provided on behalf of these collaborating entities. The Louisville Education and Employment Partnership, modeled in part after the Boston Compact, was conceived originally as a drop-out prevention effort utilizing school-to-work transition as its core strategy, and this remains its primary mission. Since its inception in early 1988, the LEEP program has annually served between 1,000 and 1,500 disadvantaged youth determined to be significantly at risk of drop- ping out of high school. Some 450 local businesses of every size and stripe have com- mitted to providing summer employment and full-time employment for successful graduates of the program, and many of these firms also provide volunteer mentors who have been invaluable in helping bridge the gap between the classroom and the workplace. The program's results, measured continuously against control group per- formance, have been impressive: the drop-out rate of participants has been reduced by more than one-half, learning gains have been notable, and the transition from high school to the workplace for these youth has been dramatically simplified. This initiative also encompasses the Jefferson County High School, which is a school dis- trict-wide alternative high school program serving students who have previously dropped out. Although school-to-work transition activities dedicated primarily to drop-out pre- vention and reclamation remain as the principal programmatic focus of the Louis- ville Education and Employment Partnership, a number of parallel initiatives to better integrate classroom and workplace learning have evolved concurrently through our collaborative efforts which, together with LEEP, now form the founda- tion in our community for the kind of comprehensive local school-to-work transition system we believe is envisioned by S.1361. Before discussing each of these compo- nents in greater detail, I must emphasize that virtually all of the transition strate- gies and mechanisms we are developing in Louisville and Jefferson County have emanated from the close and active collaboration of local government, the public schools, the business community and interested community groups. Without ques- tion, the long term commitment of each and every one of these key sectors has been indispensable to our progress in constructing a comprehensive and effective bridge between the classroom and the workplace. At present, school -to -work transition activities in Louisville and Jefferson County are being conducted primarily through, or in conjunction with, the following prin- cipal initiatives: 1. The Louisville Education & Employment Partnership The Louisville Partnership was formed in February of 1988 with five partners: The City of Louisville, Jefferson County Government, Jefferson County Public Schools, the Private Industry Council and the Chamber of Commerce. In 1990, 161 Metro United Way and the Greater Louisville Economic Development Partnership joined in this venture. The heads of these organizations form an executive commit- tee chaired by Malcolm Chancey, Chairman and CEO of Liberty National Bank. The Louisville Education and Employment Partnership offers a four-year high school program to improve the educational and employment opportunities of "at- risk" youth, focusing on academic achievement and successful transition from school-to-work. The Partnership offers our students additional opportunities of a networking with business and professional individuals. The long term goal is to im- prove the quality of the newly emerging workforce from the Jefferson County Public Schools, and improve the quality of life for the youth involved. Students are identified at the end of their 8th grade year based on educational and economic criteria. Approximately 1000 of the students involved meet Job Train- ing Partnership Act ("JTPA") guidelines for economically disadvantaged. The finan- cial support of the partners allow us to serve additional students that are education- ally at risk but slightly over the income criteria for JTPA. A career planner is assigned to each of twenty high schools in the Jefferson Coun- ty Public Schools system. This is the foundation of the in-school program which al- lows the career planner to act as a "significant other" for the 60 to 80 students in- volved at each location. The program offers a four-year curriculum in Pre-Employ- ment Work/Maturity Skills in eleven core competencies. In addition, students may take advantage of academic tutoring and work with an interactive computer learn- ing system to improve math and English skills, along with the option of course cred- it. A summer school program combines the efforts of the Private Industry Council and the Jefferson County Public Schools. This provides students a year-round pro- gram if they require that level of intervention. For those students who do not re- quire summer school, the career planners have implemented a summer jobs pro- gram through the Louisville Chamber of Commerce and the Kentucky Education and Workforce Institute. In addition, the Partnership offers a variety of vehicles for students and adults within our community: Mentoring Program; and Cities In Schools Program Our Mentoring Program offers over 100 adults in the business and government communities the opportunity to act as a significant other in a one-to-one relation- ship with Partnership students. These mentors agree to listen, be there when nec- essary, offer activities that will focus on career options, and take an interest in the academic achievements and success of those students. A number of corporations with multiple mentors allow students access to the corporate environment and alert the student to the skills necessary to make the transition from school to work. Our Cities In Schools/Burger King Academy (CIS/BK) at the Waggener High School Magnet Career Academy offers an in-school dropout prevention and dropout reclamation program. Through the assistance of a team of teachers, the career plan- ner of the The Partnership, Chapter II personnel and a CIS/BK site Director, stu- dents receive individual instruction and social services, as needed. Each student re- mains within the regular program and is provided additional assistance as their sit- uation dictates. We are fortunate that our local leadership in education, government and business are jointly committed to communicate, work together, and combine resources to pro- mote opportunities for youth. The success of the Louisville Education and Employ- ment Partnership stems from the combined efforts of all— this is a true partnership. 2. Magnet Career Academies Two years ago, with the active involvement and support of the private sector, the Jefferson County Public Schools accomplished a total, systemic restructuring of its vocational/technical education programs. The conventional two-year, part-time voca- tional education programs were jettisoned in their entirety, to be replaced by mag- net career academies which fully integrate academic and technical education throughout a four-year curriculum, so as to ensure that all students are fully pre- pared for both the workplace and further education. Each of the fourteen (14) academies has one or more career focuses, integrates academic and technical curricula, has an articulation agreement with one or more post-secondary institutions and contains state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. Each academy was designed by a task force comprised of business and industry rep- resentatives, academic and technical teachers and other staff. The eight former vocational/technical centers had a combined enrollment of 2,600 in the Fall of 1991. Currently the enrollment in the Magnet Career Academies ex- ceeds 7,000. 162 3. Post Secondary Consortium (Tech Prep) A tech prep initiative operates in fourteen (14) academies and selected high schools in the District. As an outgrowth of the tech prep initiative, the Greater Lou- isville/South Central Indiana Post-Secondary Transition Consortium was formed. This consortium is made up of seventeen (17) post-secondary institutions and has addressed such major issues as core courses common to all institutions being made similar, and making core course numbering systems more flexible. This consortium crosses state lines and involves public as well as proprietary schools. 4. Middle School Career Assessment Middle schools are providing a broad range of career assessment and exploration opportunities. Formalized comprehensive career assessment which includes career interests, learning styles, aptitude, work attitude and work temperament are given to each of the 7,500 grade students in the District. Computer-generated reports of test results are used by students, parents and guidance counselors to make in- formed decisions in the selection of high school courses and magnet school programs. Students' interests are reported as relating to one of twelve (12) occupational clus- ters, rather than particular jobs, to encourage exploration of many careers. Each middle scnool in the District is equipped with an Option 2000 Technology Education Laboratory consisting of fifteen (15) self-directed learning modules. The modules range from Aerospace to robotics. The purpose of the labs is to provide ca- reer exploration, opportunities for developing thinking skills, problem solving, team work, computer literacy and academic application skills in a technical environment. (These labs replaced the traditional Industrial Arts, wood, metal, and general draft- ing shops.) 5. The Greater Louisville Youth School-to-Work Initiative This apprenticeship initiative, begun last year in the context of the Magnet Ca- reer Academies and propelled by a partnership embracing local government, the public schools and the private sector, is now underway in five initial sites in Jeffer- son County. The apprenticeships are structured to combine a regimen of intense learning experience at the worksite with rigorous and relevant academic prepara- tion at the schools and, at minimum, will include one year each of secondary and post-secondary education. All such apprenticeships are characterized by a strong guidance component, include reliable systems of outcome evaluation and provide paid work experience and curriculum-related learning opportunities at approved worksites. 6. The Kentuckiana Education and Workforce Institute Established four years ago under the aegis of the Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Institute serves as both a focal point and a catalyst for integrating education and workforce initiatives in the community. Its fundamental mission is to identify and elucidate the education and training needs of both the current and future workforce and to facilitate the development of new programs and partner- ships to meet those needs. In this regard, the information collected and analyzed by the Institute regarding current and projected skill needs in our local labor mar- ket area, through such devices as annual surveys, focus groups and industry stud- ies, has been crucial to the restructuring of technical education and the development of the apprenticeship models discussed above. Mr. Chairman, having provided you and your colleagues with a broad outline of the school-to-work transition efforts currently underway in Louisville and Jefferson County, we would like at this juncture to offer a few brief comments distilled from our experience regarding specific provisions of S.1361. It must be emphasized that we do so only in the sincere hope that the lessons we have learned "in the trenches" might contribute in some small way to making an excellent bill even better. In this regard, it is first incumbent upon us to commend Secretaries Reich and Riley and their superb staffs at the Departments of Labor and Education, respec- tively, for the bold vision with which the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 is imbued throughout. The unprecedented cooperative relationship between these two Departments which has produced this innovative legislative proposal instantly and convincingly breathes life into the Clinton Administration's pledge to reinvent government for the benefit of America. Likewise, we commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this Subcommittee who have assisted the Administration in developing S.1361, and who now have joined with the bill's many other co-spon- sors in committing your invaluable support or its enactment. While the limited criticisms we have regarding S.1361 admittedly pale in compari- son to our genuine enthusiasm for the legislation overall, the bill as introduced does 163 contain several provisions which cause us substantial concern, and with respect to which we have developed recommendations based on our own experience. The most prominent area of concern for us with regard to S. 1361 relates to the need to strengthen the bill's commitment to the essential goal of fostering local au- tonomy an flexibility in the design and implementation of local school-to-work pro- grams. While acknowledging the urgent need to establish a national transition sys- tem predicated on the development of independent statewide systems, it is impera- tive that we also recognize the" simple reality that the only ultimate "point of con- tact" between all such systems and the youth to be served will be at the local level. It is only at this local "point of contact" that the complex aggregation of federal, state and local governmental influences tangibly intersects both the classroom and the workforce on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, it is on the local level that school systems and labor markets historically are organized, and it is principally on a local scale that these systems and markets function. Consequently, each community is in- trinsically the repository of the most precise and timely information as to the unique influences, nuances and trends which define its local labor market, on the one hand, and the needs and capacities of its local schools, on the other. Clearly, if S.1361 is to be successful in nurturing the development of responsive and innovative local school -to-work transition systems throughout America, the legislation must first en- sure that local partnerships maintain the requisite capability to design customized conduits between classroom and workplace in accordance with prevailing local con- ditions, and to readjust these conduits quickly, in the event such conditions change. For these reasons, we make the following suggestions for your consideration: (1) With respect to the award and allocation of State implementation grant subgrants to local partnerships under section 212 of the bill, we recommend that an equitable substate allocation mechanism be added, to ensure the continuity of adequate funding for qualified local partnerships on a long-term basis. (2) The award of federal implementation grants directly to local partnerships under Title III of the bill, at least initially, should not be dependent upon whether or not the State in which any such partnership is located has received a State im- plementation grant under Title II. As introduced, sections 301 and 302 of the bill appear to prohibit any local partnership in a State which has been awarded a State implementation grant from receiving a Title III partnership grant, irrespective of whether or not such State intends to award a State subgrant to that partnership. Its our opinion that existing local partnerships already prepared to implement so- phisticated school-to-work transition initiatives immediately should not be precluded automatically from receiving direct federal assistance, simply because the States in which they are located opt to apply for State implementation grants rather than State planning grants. This potentially could produce the undesirable result of deny- ing critical assistance to model programs solely on the basis of geographical acci- dent. (3) The authority to deny local partnership requests to waive federal statutory or regulatory requirements in accordance with Title in of S.1361 should rest with the Secretaries of Education and Labor, not with the States. It is inappropriate that Section 501 of the bill grants unrestricted authority to the State to deny local re- quests for waivers of federal law and regulations. As discussed previously, our own experience has demonstrated compellingly that local flexibility is the cornerstone for successful school-to-work transition systems. Regulatory regimes tailored to meet the particular needs of rural school-to-work programs, for example, might prove on- erous, even disastrous, when applied in the context of large urban initiatives, and vice versa. Indeed, where intrastate disputes over waiver strategies do arise, the predictable recourse to statewide compromise premised on "splitting the difference" may prove detrimental to innovation and responsiveness throughout the entire State. Therefore, we recommend that local partnerships have direct access to the Secretaries of Education and Labor with respect to wavier requests permitted under Title V, and that the State role in this regard be confined to reviewing and com- menting on such local requests. At the very least, local partnerships should be af- forded the opportunity to appeal a State's denial of a local waiver request directly to the appropriate Secretary. In addition to the concerns and suggestions expressed above regarding the preser- vation of local flexibility, we also recommend that the performance outcomes ex- pressed in Title IV of the bill be clarified, and that these goals be explicitly cor- related with a system of rational incentives designed to drive program performance. In this regard, we suggest that S.1361 incorporate and refine the performance standards methodologies established by the Job Training Partnership Act ("JTPA"), so that national school-to-work transition outcome expectations are clearly enun- ciated, from which appropriate State — and locally-adjusted performance objectives 164 can be derived. It is essential that the new school-to-work transition system created by this legislation be organized around performance rather than process. Finally, we believe it is critical that a new and higher priority be afforded to the quality and availability of technical assistance under S.1361. In many crucial re- spects, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 represents a revolutionary de- Barture from its legislative antecedents. The hybridization of Education and Labor •epartment authority, the dramatic increase in collaboration called for both at and among the federal, state, and local levels, and the unprecedented regulatory flexibil- ity embodied within S.1361 all represent paradigm shifts which promise to place heretofore unequaled demands on federal technical assistance capabilities. To ac- commodate these demands, we propose that Title IV of S.1361 specifically authorize the Secretaries of Education and Labor to create and iointly administer a "National School-to-Work Technical Assistance Corps" composed primarily of State and local practitioners with experience in designing or conducting effective school-to-work transition activities. Federal technical assistance funds could be used to reimburse the State and local programs involved for such expenses as staff time and travel when necessary to accomplish Corps duties. Through this mechanism, the Depart- ments could maintain a cadre of experienced, hands-on experts to help meet growing technical assistance needs, while simultaneously building an effective diffusion net- work capable of providing deserved recognition to exceptional staff from successful programs round the country. Once again, Mr. Chairman, we must reiterate that notwithstanding our expres- sion of the foregoing concerns and suggestions regarding S.1361, those of us working to bridge the gap between the classroom and the workplace here in Louisville and Jefferson County strongly support the overall thrust of this legislation. Indeed, we recognize that much ot what we have done and now plan to do locally fits com- fortably within the ambit of this bill. In a very immediate sense, for example, this legislation holds out some promise for helping us address last year's near decima- tion of our Louisville Education and Employment Partnership's dropout prevention program as a consequence of JTPA's mandatory shift away from assistance for in- school youth. We are also particularly pleased by what we perceive to be S.1361's substantial shift in regulatory emphasis away from the past, exaggerated reliance on reactive, post-program monitoring toward the much more proactive approach re- flected in the bill s dual focus on application procedures and access to broad statu- tory and regulatory waivers. We applaud these important changes and believe they will encourage true, systemic innovation. Of course, in the broader sense, we support S.1391 because it addresses the long- standing need to link American schools more closely with American workplaces. We recognize that our nation alone, among all of the advanced industrial economies, has failed to devise a comprehensive school-to-work transitional system for our youth, and we realize further that this failure now portends real danger, not iust for these youth themselves, but for American competitiveness generally. H.G. Wells once re- ferred to human history as "a race between education and catastrophe". Perhaps no- where is the poignant truth of that remark more evident than in the context of our urgent need to enact as quickly as possible the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity, on behalf of the Louisville Edu- cation and Employment Partnership, to submit this testimony in support of S.1361 for the record of hearings before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productiv- ity, and I commend you and your colleagues for the expeditious attention you are giving to the critical need to establish an effective, comprehensive school-to-work transition system in America. I respectfully request that the accompanying mate- rials describing our local programs in further detail be considered part of this testi- mony and entered into the record accordingly. Statement of Stephen Denby Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, on behalf of VICA's quarter million student members this year, our business and labor supporters, and our 16,000 vocational instructors, I thank you for the oppor- tunity to testify on The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993. In my opinion, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act takes many needed steps to improve the qual- ity of training and education for all of America's students, and I commend you for your work. To place my comments in context, I will begin by stating that the Vocational In- dustrial Clubs of America is dedicated to serving the customers of public vocational education: students in high school and postsecondary programs, and employers of vocational graduates. Since 1965, VICA has worked to improve vocational-technical 165 instruction specifically in the vital areas of leadership, teamwork, communication, and management skills. As a vocational student organization (VSO), we are en- dorsed by the U.S. Department of Education as an integral part of the vocational curriculum, and we are cited in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Tech- nology Education Act of 1990 as an activity which can be supported by federal With regard to the legislation, I particularly commend the following items: First, the involvement of business and labor. From our experience, the active par- ticipation, support and assessment of vocational programs and graduates by rep- resentatives from business and labor is key to the improvement of training pro- grams. Business and labor are "customers" of the public training system just as the students so they must be involved in the system. What is more, our experience tells us that students become more actively involved in their own education once they see the interest and support from these partners. Second, career orientation and inclusion. The Act gives a much needed reorienta- tion to the purpose and desired outcomes of education. For far too long, public edu- cation has focused on the needs of a few and missed the needs of all. I applaud this new emphasis on inclusion, and the recognition that all students need to be truly prepared for their future careers, and the demonstrated belief that career prepara- tion is a worthy and desirable outcome for public instruction. Third, instruction to standards and certificates of initial mastery. Nothing could be of greater service to students than to ensure the education and training they re- ceive in fact prepares them for their careers and further education. Education policy and practice which holds back academic rigor from vocational students, and discour- ages occupational training for college-prep students, is a disservice to both. Frankly, in my opinion the practice of tracking has itself been a disservice to students and a major contributor to the decline of education quality. All students need the same opportunities, and all need to be held to high standards. I see evidence of the suc- cess of this approach constantly in VICA. In VICA we have nearly 30 years of experience in preparing students to industry standards though our United States Skill Olympics competition pro- gram. Competition standards are set by industry; students and their instructors re- spond to the challenge. I believe certificates of mastery will be beneficial in much the same way. They will recognize the accomplishment of students, but even more, the process of certification will require rigorous assessment by third parties in busi- ness and labor. That's what is needed to guarantee students receive the education and training they need to begin their careers, employers receive trained people in their businesses, and that apprenticeship programs can count on the skills of indi- viduals in their advanced training systems. Fourth, work-based learning, and the involvement of vocational education. Train- ing in the workplace can be one of the most motivating and effective teaching meth- ods available. Vocational education's experience with cooperative education (as it is meant to be practiced, rather than the "work experience" type of program it has tended to become) is very successful in meeting both student and employer needs. One of the greatest limitations to coop is the number of training slots available and the amount of training coop students receive prior to being placed on the job- site. These are two reasons why I encourage the full involvement and use of the public vocational program in pre-placement training and subsequent enrichment Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of workplace readiness skills, some- thing not currently highlighted in the Act. As the SCANS Commission pointed out last year, there is far more to successful employment and career preparation than academics and hands-on occupational skills. Workplace competencies such as re- source management, interpersonal skills, and understanding systems are all criti- cally important. So are the foundation skills including basic skills in communication, problem-solving skills, and personal qualities including self-esteem and self-manage- ment. I firmly believe that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act will not go as far as it should if teaching these skills and developing these qualities are not required in the Act. I also believe that vocational student organizations — such as VICA — have a vital and precedented role to play in developing these skills. While it is not the intention of this committee to be prescriptive I am sure, citing the vocational student organizations in the legislation would ensure that states and localities will look to the VSOs as partners in the process of developing school-to- work systems. In closing, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman, and this committee, for your im- portant work to transform public instruction in the interest of all students; in the interest of employers; and in the interest of labor. The School-to-Work Opportunities 166 Act is a bold and needed step forward. I encourage you to keep the process moving. Much remains to be done to educate and train Americas high performance workforce. Statement of James F. Clayborne, Jr. EAST ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 kto AN ENROLLMENT AS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 OF 583 AT RISK AND EARLY CHILDHOOD STUDENTS, 8106 KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 6 AND SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS, 3030 GRADE 7 THROUGH 9 AND SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND 2586 GRADE 10 THROUGH 12 AND SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND 124 STUDENTS SERVED OUTSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 189. THESE STUDENTS ARE HOUSED IN TWENTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, FOUR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, TWO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, ONE SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL WITH GRADES FIVE AND SIX, ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL, ST. CLAIR COUNTY DETENTION CENTER AND STUDENTS IN DISTRICT 189 BEING SERVED BY SCHOOLS OUTSIDE DISTRICT 189. THE STUDENTS IN THIS DISTRICT AS WELL AS ALL STUDENTS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ARE ENTITLE TO HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES AND RESOURCES WHETHER THEY ARE IN A POOR OR WEALTHY SCHOOL DISTRICT. IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SCHOOLS FUNDING IS BASED ON GENERAL STATE AID, EQUALIZED ASSESS VALUATION, TOTAL TAX RATE, OPERATING TAX RATE, OPERATING EXPENSES PER PUPIL, PER CAPITAL TUTITION CHARGE AND STATE AID CLAIM TYPE. THE STATE AID CLAIM TYPE OPERATES UNDER THREE DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS, UHICH ARE "A" SPECIAL EQUALIZATION-RESOURCE- EQUALIZER, DISTRICTS UB" REFERS TO ALTERNATE-METHOD DISTRICTS, AND CODE "C REFERS TO FLAT-GRANT DISTRICTS. FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 THERE WERE 747 CODE "A'su, 130 CODE "B's" AND 71 CODE "C's", TOTALING 949 SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 USE FORMULA "A". THESE FORMULAS DO NOT GIVE EQUAL FUNDING TO EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR DO THEY COVER ALL STUDENTS BEING SERVED BY THE DISTRICT. (SEE FIGURE 1.00) FROM 1988-1989 THROUGH 1991-1992 THERE UERE 2496 STUDENTS THAT WERE NOT CLAIMED DO TO THE FACT THAT NEITHER OF THE DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS COVER THESE STUDENTS. IF YOU ATTACH THIS NUMBER OF DAYS TO THE BEST THREE MONTHS COHPUTEO IN TYPE "A" FORMULA UE WILL RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 12 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS. (SEE FIGURE 1.10) SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 HAS A DECLINE IN ENROLLMENT ROM 1988-1989, 722 STUDENTS AND 422 OF 447 NON CLAIMABLE; EQUALS TO A TOTAL LOST OF APPROXIMATELY $5,408,434.40 DOLLARS. THIS LOST CREATED A BIG MONSTER AND EVENTUALLY HELP PUT DISTRICT 189 IN SERIOUS FINANCIAL CONDITION. 167 DECLINE IN BIRTH RATE BEGINNING IN 1983, FLOOD IN 1987-1988, AND SECTION 8 HOUSING IN SURROUNDING CITIES, AND STATE AND FEDERAL CATEGORICAL FUNDING AND MANDATES UHICH LIMITS THE LOCAL BOARD'S USE OF FUNDS. (SEE TABLES A « B) AND (FIGURE 1.11 AND FIGURE 1.12) SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 HAS AND IS EXPERIENCING A DECLINE IN ENROLLMENT DUE TO LACK OF NEW BORNS, LACK Of NEW HOUSING. STATE REFORMS WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDING. INCREASE IN DESERVED SALARIES FOR STAFF AND FEDERAL MANDATES AND CATEGORICAL FUNDING. (SEE TABLE C) WHERE MANDATED PROGRAMS FAIL TO MEET THE TOTAL FUNDING, THE OISTRICT MUST PICK UP FUNDING FROH NON-RESTRICTED SOURCES SUCH AS GENERAL STATE AID. IN LOOKING AT THE CHAPTER I PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING DISADVANTAGE STUDENT BY FY 1995, I FIND IT IS TAKING A BETTER LOOK AT THE POOR LOU INCOME CHILDREN IN THE HOME, SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY. I AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT 801! OF THE MONEV WILL BE OSED ON THE LOW- INCOME CHILDREN. SPECIAL EDUCATION MANDATES ARE TOO STRANEOUS ON DISTRICT UHO ARE INADEQUATELY FUNDED SUCH AS DISTRICT 189, WHERE THE BUDGET IS APPROXIMATELY 8.4 MIL WITH ONLY 6.9 MIL GENERATE FROH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS, WHICH MEAN THE DISTRICT MUST PICK UP 1.5 MIL DEFICIT FROH NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS. STATE LEGISLATURES WERE ONCE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHOOL FINANCE, WHICH WERE IN THE FORM OF GENERAL STATE AID APPORTIONMENT TO CATEGORICAL FUNDING UITHIN THE STATE SCHOOL FINANCIAL PLAN. I RECOMMEND THE NON-RESTRICTION USAGE OF FUNDS SUCH AS GENERAL STATE AID ENTITLEMENT, WILL PERMIT DESCRETIONARY USAGE OF FUNDS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THIS APPROACH MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN TWO SUGGESTED WAYS: 1. LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SOURCES PROVIDE FOR EACH SCHOOL THE NECESSARY FUNDS BASED ON THE SCHOOLS' PLANNING, PROGRAM AND BUDGET SYSTEM. (PPBS) THE PPBS WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE CHILD NEEOS (EDUCATION, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND HEALTH DEVELOPMENT) IN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. STATE AND FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES SHOULD GUARANTEE ALL DISTRICTS ADEQUATE FUNDS TO MEET THEIR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT STATE-WIDE AVERAGES IN ILLINOIS (SEE TABLES D, E AND F) YOU WILL SEE THAT THE MORE STUDENTS SERVED THE LESS MONIES ARE AVAILABLE TO EDUCATE THE STUDENT. DISTRICT 189 HAS OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS IN MUSIC, MATH AND SCIENCE, GIFTED, BETA CLUB, TESTING PROGRAMS (ACHIEVEMENT TEST, ILLINOIS GOALS AND ASSESSMENT TEST, ACT AND SAT TEST) SPORTS, OUTSTANDING STUDENTS AND PARENTS, NON-CERTIFIED AND CERTIFIED STAFF. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE LACK 168 OF FUNDS AND DESCRETIONARY FUNDING WE MILL LOOSE THESE ATTRIBUTES IN SCHOOL DISTRICT 189. IN CLOSING, I AH NOT SURE THAT EQUAL DISTRIBUTION IN FUNDING EDUCATION IS THE ANSWER, AS PROVIDING THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF EDUCATING THE WHOLE CHILD. Figure 1.00 FALL ENROLLMENT 20 15 -a < s 10 EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 16399 15677 — a- 153S3 15014 14723 w& ASSSL. m& — • 440 447 ♦ ■ 428 — * 587 — ♦ 594 _ » 1986 1989 199U 1991 1992 _j„ ENROLLMENT ADA - AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE NC - NON -CLAIMABLE STUDENTS NONCLAIMABLE STUDENTS Figure 1.10 ENROLLMENT WEIGHTED LEVEL OF FUNDING EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 0 3 SZ02 - • - 7818 7752 — ^ '554 6 3 - 4 3774 i j •» 3423 3188 3080 " 2155 ■ * 19S6 1999 3351 1990 1991 1992 „.. ELEMENTARY GRADES I K-6) __ JUNIOR HIGH GRADES 7-8 _^_ SENIOR HIGH GRADES 9- 12 1993 169 Figure 1.11 STUDENT RETENTION IN DISTRICT 189 FROM 1984 - 1992 2000 i BIRTH 1:1702: 1500 - Rl. 1626: 1000 500 -GR2< ►1350} «GR3: ' 5128U >GR4< .qrs, I J1163J JH47J :GR6: .QR7, LiSTi; 11052$ £RS. 1978 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Hi NUMBER ENROLLED Figure 1.12 1985 AREA DECLINE OF BIRTHS EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 168S 1986 1987 -_ BIRTHS 198$ 170 TA8LE A ENROLUIEi'T raEtlOS AND PROJECTIONS EAST ST LOUIS SCHOOL 01 STRICT 13? EAS8D ON AREA BIRTHS 1923 1936 1?37 1 939 1939 ! 1790 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 278^-^-4.^3^*-U20 ' 11 "3 113^2 ialf*--^0_4j '.252 1 1 ?5~~T^SO~- L13S U24 1082^~ifl^ 120 7 S12/! — a3g3~-~L07.1 10S7 t-4|3~~-+-243 1222 ! 11 23 U.ilT^Ul?2 122? — 4-223 — H-32 ! 1143 1 0 SCT"~+aj3 1333 1270 M_$3~~~---LgS3 1094 100 44 1054 10?o— --j£*>7— — £33 1 1 4~T-— SS7*--^J»P3 • 9*9 ?S 321 300 K-3! 13144 12419 12123 11229 11127 ! 10932 10735 10279 10423 10212 912! 2234 2037 -9!? 4631 4333 ! 4290 4037 3309 3624 3210 K12! 13330 17476 17047 16130 13710 ! 13223 14342 14337 14022 13322 AREA BIRTHS: :=r3i '.r:2 :-sit i?oo 1934: ;.3o !??-: 1737 !932i 1902 1933: 1737 ! '30 ! 1903 I -33 : '.773 1934: 1 477 1 937 : 1 433 195S: lo3£ - cStimat9 Area Birtss: list St. Lcuis ilasnlngrcn ParK Alortrr Center/Hie Fairmont City "mouj'.riTS co not ".nlcuol EO.. PRE-K, UNGRADED STUDENTS. ENROLLMENT TREWS ANO PROJECTIONS EAST ST. LCUI3 SCHOOL DISTRICT 139 1939 1990 l?'l |9°2 *. 9«3 1994 1993 :9«4 1997 l?°9 a 9 to I 1 12 117V- I 160 -t-L5?"^-!-U3 I l23"-^0.<:2 1222 112 --4433 1113 ~-U.o2-— LQ.27 ! l29n-~-U.?5 ! 1033 ! 993 H4i 1 izf*--i4.2r"~-i-a.3t ?a 1415 1222— 1-2«}2- 33"8-~-US? 1172 llsV- -izo3---L03o 1023 1 0 2T---U 06"-—-* 63 9 7?— ~!45'f~ 1037 ?3{r •-W.0.4 I 0 30 9. 90' ""-1-020 919 t2J 990 921" 3.4° 349 93~~— 219 1 0£3— -4.0102" 930 9t"~ y.-V. U12-J 912! 4553 K12! 13707 10632 4219 1 4BE4 102! 390? 14163 ?332 97J6 3221 340' I — "" — W I V 1 .Jsrf 1037 1046 1224 1244 ^J'-M— J1S3 iOi>— i.o*22 972 ?'"ss- ~^915 919 ^ 9*T — -,^34 9S5-U0.24 1063 1273 1039 1034 -^40--^ 902-- 340 -335 7?0- 973 73 • a.' 1049 1231 1037 ?43 -?30 393*" 94'3" 399 41 1043 1231 109? 575 971 -. 399 --832— 873 -- 901 --929*"- 460—- : 27i9 3733 3499 2316 2340 1174? I 1323 EHROLLMciiTS 30 "I0T STUDENTS. -.NCL'JOE SPECIAL EnUCATIOt:, PRE-''-. UNC-RAOEO 171 TABLE 0 OICFCIOC U. IUui P. U.xtungton L. Br-pur> P. H->stiington J. &.»\mnghi«a L. Hicks P. Wa-jti imgttan S. Scatt r. Thnrpo L. Parks M. Babbitt 8. Ccvnrad E. Rllen L. Hidoi P. nurdock B. Conrad G. Jervkirw L. Hicks B. Sp^jm 0. Calvert V. fldaes M. BocJbitt G- Jenkins F. Tha-p U. ndaas F. TKvp M. Babbitt •D. Gilli-u F. Bir-th 5. Scfttt L- Hiefc* 6. Jci.kins J. CumingHitm F. TRsrp T. Pcrin G. Jenkins W. Hitehell M. Bobbttt F. Tliarp C. Pxradise B. Ccfc-u-ad U. Hitclwll U. HitchffH F. TVint-p J. Cunningham C. Paradise C. Pat adz*e 0. Cwoon ruf-ifeb Ulih«./&'l993 UJC PPOCCrrl NFfE 13 0T DISK 16 CEBIOWFU VOC. note 1 17 IPRETP 19 TEai-PPEP 21 TITLE IT MRTH & SCIENCE 2S ainTTEB I llOff-PUGLIC 36 am. PEEK IMS 37 OPUS Ff&Z 47 atrtpiEro II ESER si obiueh educrtiom not* 3 67 94-142 IDFJVailPS 69 PUBLIC nSSISTRNCE 70 SIFTED 73 cunprnj i ruocc 75 STUFF DEVELOPMENT 76 W£CEP 77 smie nnuLT En BO QFjTOIMG IMPROVEMENT Bi DinPTFj? i nrjMN 82 CUIIDUESr 03 COUNTDOWN B4 5FEHK 85 OPPNTimeg 86 ESEn amp tec n 87 ESQ! n-nPTFJ! II note 4 90 ERHLY DULOHDOD 92 LEDOftET! OBJECTIVE 93 ESGD OWPIEE II 94 94-142 rpEEDTDCL not*2 95 OETDIUS riOIIEVQIENT 99 ItlNOVOTIVF. 5DIFNCE Rfl ALCOHOL 8, DRUG EO rb chapter i penennn impp. nc KDCFPGncrEN bides 00 ESEH atfTPTEH II R£ ESEH OIRPTER II RF E5ET1 CHPPtEE II TO REJttJTHG RECD"Et3Y RH E55EB CHPPTEP II RI DnPTER I B9-313 pj ESEn ainmEJ! n RO DRY CriHS CENTER BP IUFOHlOTlnN PEFERPRL RS ESER CtlflPTEB II RT ESER DlflPIEE II RU ESEH CltftpiEE II RU MRTH/SCIENCE LORN RU SIU-E FJTRNTS RX aURLITY EimflHCfiENT RU PPOGPrlM IMt'RCVEHENT RZ Computer ukshp total ootos: 1. Rudit .idjuscmont For 1990 and 1931 uill reduce future grat>C3 or bo pnid fre« nnrv— restricted sources. Z. JS0.332 lapsed from 1992 3. Hirvrtatod program. 4. *33.0SO lnpsod from 1992. The local share far these programs is ERST ST. LOUIS DISTRICT njuniNo HHOUNT OF ESTIMRTED Fifciro SOURCE FUNDINB TOTAL COST LEVEL state ♦605.766 ♦603,766 100. 002 ed/state ♦6GS.103 ♦829.152 bo. sax federal ♦43.431 ♦90.202 SO. 002 federal *43,0DQ ♦49,100 91.652 fedora 1 ♦ISO. 320 ♦ 150,320 inn on;: federal 189.856 ♦83,856 100.002 Fedoral ♦466.079 ♦466,079 1Q0.D02 federal ♦369,011 ♦373,557 98.782 fedoral ♦8,205 ♦8,205 - loo. oo* state ♦41,000 ♦232,371 .17.642 fedoral . ♦ 454,579 ♦454,379 100.002 fodoral ♦18.330 ♦ 18,330 100.002 statu ♦133.329 ♦289,000 49.562 7^ fedoral ♦233.476 ♦233,476 100.002 state »25.557 ♦23,557 100.002 federal ♦33.22B ♦97,927 95.202 stato ♦30,960 ♦30,960 100.007. state ♦664,111 ♦698,880 93.022 Fedoral ♦334, 4QS ♦334,405 100.007. federal ♦2.262.552 ♦2.262.552 100.002 federal 51,391,067 ♦ 1,381,067 100.002 fedoral ♦978, 126 ♦978,126 100.002 state ♦234,262 ♦254,262 100.002 federal ♦66,143 ♦67,311 99.262 Federal ♦93,000 ♦126.050 73.782 fod»ral ♦ 1,959,447 ♦1,958,447 100.002 state ♦14,666 ♦14,866 100.002 fedoral ♦4,200 ♦4,200 100.002 fedoral ♦193.896 ♦243,228 79.312 federal ♦907, BB1 ♦1,386,429 71.2S2 federal ♦718,863 ♦718,881 100.002 federal ♦155.000 ♦155,000 100.002 federal ♦71.71S ♦71,716 100.002 federal ♦650,900 ♦650,900 100.002 federal ♦13,437 *13,437 100.002 Federal ♦5,600 ♦3,600 100.002 Federal ♦34,043 ♦34,043 100.002 state ♦461,806 ♦461,806 100.002 fwderal ♦3,809 ♦3,899 100. OOZ federal ♦110,318 ♦110,310 100.002 federal ♦1,400 ♦1,400 100. 002 state ♦101,222 ♦188,373 53.732 state ♦5,000 ♦5,000 100.002 federal ♦2,000 ♦2,000 100. 002 federal ♦5,424 ♦5,424 100.002 fedoral ♦2,134 ♦2,134 100.002 fedoral ♦56,144 ♦56.144 100.0Q2 ♦ 31.000 ♦31,000 100.002 state ♦ 10.008 ♦10,000 100.002 state ♦1,500 ♦1,500 100. aa: state ♦ 4,350 ♦4,350 100. 0O2 *1S.111,954 ♦16,263, B76 ♦1.151,922 172 £ z =J Hie v* W )3 C? ? 3 2 ^ dR58 « v| in r| n *S * 'a C\ CO «-^ VI t3* ct i a \o v-» vo v% 2323 o D z o £ < 5 CI „ >3 3<_ I! i— • 3 5 5 i .< 5 8§2 O CI . Z C7 ~ gag u 6p o 3 s II Ska £ 3 ags •a «J vrf tf CO 3 m VD ro « en va r^ t f| rt k r* 3 IS rl «o «*? oef —< N «*-J * *- W3 c> vj_ erf — erf r» O O to rJ ■*• ^r o p> a" rf ri cf ■"^ —1 3 »— a 1/1 t> r— ■V t~ - 823 3 -*r •A r~ r» •"• d ^* 21 3 3 2* 0 CO ^ rO V3 oo -r oq v* — J w w-t — pa 55 ~- § -• 3 3 3S n o t-1 * a s h a *»"* XT « -* ^1 rJ orf jo" iA oi a L" ". • c\ M rJ - m CT> ry- — ir 5 8 r^ r3 M 5 h « *r\ c* — — • » 'si H \d - \3 w h 5 3 1 3 c« u a m o «i o> •O — r* O « r^ r-» (» c?^ SBI ft o n r^ 3 3 cj K orf wo «o »*7 — . 3 OO *3 va «r •*{ t^" y» K S « « N f^ rt r- r«4 « fi » »r — » - «rf •» S ef 1 yr c* f>f ^ 5 3 \rt wn ■•r -TT -* rf OQ tJ 2 R. ft to h* S" ** v\ « in a »• m 3R » S*3 r- i en r^ r- to" 15 ^ 0 3 § «J „* a v» v> c^ r> 2 wn s ^1 -* ™ ^* Sf rf ^ ^ Q & *n ^ oa co eO TT 0\ fl H 00* ~ -J w^T dcc3S ** "™ ^1 w. 5 r Ilia w t £ e 173 • • a. i o < ► }5So^Scv™ M <- r« c* « — • PCOrttiv-'' • • ui •>• '« •• 1 £ r»MMMrt«flit 1*1 w» — « r- t — — ■Oirn m o n n o t> o - «t*»i« -■* — «»i-— »«■» w » -r t-» ^ ^ M r» *» r» r« n r» O S I B25SsS338 -85 cr — -J i * Ujw t» 3 3 it -sa uj p2 —I « n CO o y 3 w u i <; tu a a < i -- 0. < — t- VI > Z - - M<#p<*0"V<4 •t n V n « » « * N«t r» nr- to in 8OOOOO00 OOOOOOO rtto* o«» -*' eov — [D — r-OO r-uiuitDiMc^ — p yy i-i t o co a in nd — M *- IM ooOoopoo KDIONOO'*«» ^ in r* r* ■* r» » N n « n r< id c ^ <<£.*-«■<««•<; 6NnAnc>H«r I o o *» q v fcgjEi. — i * •- i X 5 3 ea \n 3 *- 2 OS u 3 j^lwD 0 w O D □ i^ tA l. g u u :a ^ ui i_ \r wJ tiJ O — ►** ca u JO > T4 K I '-. g -> E Z -^ O lOtfJ-J^utt J ILMMUJOO. O," < pooopooo 1 s ■ cj •■- ** o o o 0 « • (id r. z> 'S1 ro vrtMw i£ in * o — ©••*■ T< O SI ! ce r* w • p> fi at n MOlflr d « CP ^ •J -J D O 00 usuu Z4Uil>> 3 -j — ts f c o i§>8 82! O O S^ ~ - n * ON N- BIT r- ld o 10 io o r» w « « ^ r> 8ooo©ot o 5 5 o cj. i- O e» is «* ( iDfl< p\ t* n to n •» 1 O a a» r- * — *-© n n n> r* n r«- «- *^ v ** « " ooooooop oopoooco — OOlfllftr »r> r- r- — r*OM0 1f> <^444*X<< r- »f^ — P n o « •-noopw*'"" « O* — O D » « f* §m r o vt • 3 (J — »-« O £ 5 f> -x >( n ^, < u ^ a p *- O BJUittXiDinO. ujcdiunattP Q O Q O 0) N N Bl < OOOOOOOP Sooo-- — •-■pr»oi— r-bn «* «* n" o" w* * ^ r» n r-B»fiDM3inO" Bl 8§§§§§88S I! 6 p c «r r* i rtMTQipctRtfiii aoa«otirt q« «w m n o a «■ ■ — O0 i w o*- * r* « • i -i f^ ^ o * — f i Lrt •» «*■ o r> ( ! Sl^B" 5 2 3 n *-• cm i £ £ » ^ KSoSgug u Uj wj ^ a K 8 < -J ? « -I r>« O U ^ tLn o«ooooooo □ o X Z ss CS K > > a i 8g8§55S55 w References East St. Louis Comm1nit.y Unit School District 189, Research, Evaluation and Testing Department. Dr. James F. Clayborne, Jr., Director and Brenda Birge Secretary St. Clair County Office of Regional Superintendent, Honorable Martha R. O'Malley State Board of Education, Department of Research and Planning, Dr. Robert Leininger, State Superintendent 174 Statement of GASC Tbchnology Center The Manufacturing Technology Partnership (MTP) is a school-to-work transition program focusing on creating a diversified pool of interested and qualified candidates for careers in manufacturing and the skilled trades. The cooperative venture has as its partners General Motors, the UAW, Atlas Technologies, the GASC Technology Center, 15 Genesee County high schools, Matt and Baker Colleges, Jobs Central, and the Flint Roundtable. Over eighty students are participating in the program this year. The program targets minorities and females. The initial clcss of students hac entered its second year of the program. Fifty new students started the program this fall. The MTP program builds on applied academics, infusing reading, writing, algebra and physics into such skilled trades areas as welding, drafting, machifiiny, sheet metal, electronics, and machine repair. Students are more willing to work on their academic skills both because they are applied to the skilled trades and because they know that at the conclusion of the two-year training period they will need to take an industry-created standardized test that includes sections on reading comprehension and math. They will also need to pass traditional college-entrance tests to take advantage of GM's generous offer of a two-year scholarship to either of the partner community colleges. Work-site mentors ere designated to work with the students. Mentors share and role model the daily lives and experiences of those who are employed in manufacturing, and they also work on developing positive self-esteem, self- discipline, critical thinking, time management, goal-setting and similar characteristics of successful employees. The MTP curriculum is outcomes-based. Students attend classes at their home school for academic/core curriculum instruction. I hey attend the GASC Technology Center for hands -en technological training and the remainder of the; day is spent in paid work experience Students also receive a training Etipend for 24 hours per week paid work experience during the summer. The program was twenty-two months in development and MTP began with its fin?t class of students in the fall of 1QQ? The program is still in its infant stage as the first group of students will not be ab!e to take the apprenticeship te3t until the summer of 1994. Howevet, the following comments are based upon one year's program operation, experience, and lessons learned. + The ptogram'e strength is great because decisions have been made jointly. + The word "partnership" is key All partners (educators, business/industry, government, parents, students) have to maintain an active role, develop and implement policy. Participating partners have recognized that each partner h3s issues that are unique and that need to be recognized by all. + We have found that education and business work differently. The partnership ha3 allowed us to cross boundaries and examine the others operation. 175 + Employers are beginning to view this program as a viable option for thf:ir future work forco. + Educators must fce willing to let outsiders Into their Institutions and be willing to accept criticism. + 71 ie value of the school -to-work movement must be sold to parents so that parents demand that more programs like this be made available to their children + Business/industry have to be: made ov/3re that they too must also have a virion relating to their future wuik force and that through this initiative they will have an opportunity to develop that future work force. + We have learned thst grades are not true indicators of a person's ability or lacK of ability. Outcomes based curriculum has csuscd us to develop very detailed program standards that are acceptable to all partners. + Hie challenge remains to maintain continuity while making program i e visions. As practitioners, we strongly support the national movement to implement school-to-work legislation that would enhance the Institutionalization of programs such as MTP. We are eager to work with any member of Congress to further develop this in'rtiafive across the Country. Thank you. Senatt Tabor and Human Relations Ruboonnnitt** on Employment and Productivity The young adults in our community have long enjoyed the unique opportunities provided by cur educational institutions. One such pioneering effort is the careers in Health Partnership between GASC TECHNOLOGY CENTER and the Hurley Medical Center. This unique partnership has been the catalyst for hundreds of young people who choose to pursue health cetears beyond the. traditional stereotypical career titles normally chosen. The Careers in Health Program integrates classroom preparation with comprehensive Tnpdicnl center experience. The program emphasizes the time spent at the medical center. Students work on a dally basis one-on-one with hospital staff in this comprehensive faciltv- Students have unlimited opportunities to sample various work areas and to receive extensive training in areas of their choice. This partnership has evolved over the past twelve years to a point where four full time staff members are now engaged at the hospital site. The partnership has expanded to include not only health careers but also the business operations found at this major facility. The inclusion of business students has expanded the program and has caused it to becomo a "cchool within a bueinoce." Because of the suc^p^^ or this venture the concept has been extended to another comprehensive facility, Geresys Regional Medical Center, for '93-94 with plans for further expansion into the third facility, McLaren General Hospital, for the '94-95 school year. The expansion will create a clear career path from high schools to the Tech Center to the health care facility. Through articulation agreements with local community college departments, students enjoy immediate access to college programs with credit being given for the Tedi ct-nLui and hospital experience. 176 The partnership represents a pattern of relationships that forms a career pathway with many branches that allow for the diversity of student choica. The partnership also accommodates the development of critical performance r«lat*d Jnt-.PT-personal and technical skills that otherwise would receive only superficial development utilizing traditional educational resources. Thank ycu for the opportunity to share this example of a successful partnership. GASC TECHNOLOGY CENTER Douglas J. Weir, Principal J& Minnesota J*4 Business JB* Partnership August 30, 1993 Mr. Jon Schrocder Office of U.S. Senator Dave Durcnbeiger 1020 Plymouth Building 12 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Jon: Thanks for your letter of August 20 relating to the Senator's interest in school-to-wprk transition Issues. As we have indicated before, we are extremely grateful that the Senator has chosen to be the lead minority sponsor of the Administration's legislation in the Congress. We have reviewed the draft legislation and the Senator's background piece. I will not go through each of the issue identified in your memorandum, but let me make a few general points. As work on this legislation proceeds, we would appreciate very much the opportunity to further refine these ideas. Concept of systemic reform. Li reading through the legislation and explanatory materials, we are somewhat concerned that the legislation appears to promote the creation of "add-on" programs rather than encouraging a systemic restructuring of education to enhance work-base learning. We believe the Idea of work and work preparation should be more thoroughly integrated into the basic core curriculum of American education. It is not enough to add youth apprenticeship programs and other work-based programs to our current system. The federal government should encourage local schools and employers to work together to think how the concept of education-to-employment transition should be made a more fundamental, underlying concept of American education generally. Ranee of opportunities. We are not saying that every student should have a youth apprenticeship experience. We do believe, however, that every student should have some sort of work-based learning experience while in school. In the elementary years, this may mean nothing more than "career shadowing" programs and some changes in the elementary curriculum. As a student progresses through middle and secondary schools, the range of work-based learning experience within the basic curriculum should be greatly expanded. In Minnesota, for example, the 1993 177 legislature simultaneously enacted youth apprenticeship, youth enrrepreneurship and community service. For each student, the particular programs from which they could receive most benefit will probably vary. All students - those who are going directly into the work force after high school and those who are going on to advanced education - should be encouraged to engage in some sort of work-base learning experience. general observation? about youth employment. This leads to our final point. We are afraid that the federal legislation may speak too narrowly about work-base learning. A large portion of American high school students already work (in Minnesota's case — 69% of our high school Students work an average of 22 hours per week — the highest percentage in the nation). The federal legislation should also speak to ways by which this basic work experience can be made more useful to students. Our recent Readiness report speaks to that question (an updated copy of that report — which reflects 1993 legislation In Minnesota on work-base learning -- is enclosed.) Let me suggest some other resources for you. Minnesota Technology Inc. has recently received a grant from the Minnesota Education to Employment Transition Council to provide technical assistance on these programs. Key contacts at MTI are Thomas Berg and Dale Jorgenson. If you have, not already, you should review the Business Roundtable's recent report entitled WoHdvtve Training and Development for U.S. Competitiveness (August 1993). The chair of the Roundtable's project is Larry Perlman of Ceridian Corporation. Finally, I have enclosed an updated copy of our Transformation report which builds off the national SCANS project and suggests specific needed outcomes and skills for Minnesota education graduates. Last week, we completed a very successful series of 1 1 regional meetings around the state on this issue. The Partnership co-sponsored this series with the State Department of Education, lead legislators and our community and technical college systems. We brought together education and business leaders to advise them of 1993 legislation affecting work-based learning. We are working on a follow-up program designed to further expand information and interest. We in the Partnership would be pleased to serve in any sort of intermediatory capacity with other Minnesota organizations that are working in this field. We would also be pleased to help build bridges to other comparable business organizations In other states. In late September, for example, between 15-20 state business roundtable organizations are convening for our annual meeting, and we requested that work-base learning be placed on the agenda for that event. Deputy Secretary of Education Madeline Kunin will be visiting with us on this issue. Once again, Jon, please extend our sincere appreciation to Senator Durenberger for carrying this legislation. We would be pleased to submit other Information to the Senator or testimony to his colleagues as this legislation proceeds in the Congress. NRimTripie Triplet! Executive Director BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 178 J* Minnesota 3 9999 05982 564 4 J*A Business -JB* Partnership September 28, 1993 The Honorable David Durcnbcrgcr United States Senate 154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 Dear Senator Durenberger: Thanks again for agreeing to serve as the lead minority author of the Administration's School- To-Work Opportunities legislation. Work-based learning, including programs such as youth apprenticeships, Is a top priority for the Minnesota Business Partnership, anc we greatly appreciate your leadership role on this issue. We have reviewed this draft legislation. Enclosed arc comments which may suggest some needed amendments. We have sent another copy of these comments to Deputy Secretary Madeline Kunin (who recently addressed the state roundtable organizations on this Issue). Please let us know if we can be of further assistance on this most important Inidative. Tom Triplett Executive Director Minnesota Business Partnership September 30, 1993 Comments on Draft Legislation entitled* "School-tc-Work Opportunities Act of 1993* Sections 2 and 3 (THndlnys and Goals.1 These introductory sections of the Act are superb. They properly recognize the need and identify the range Of Options available to deal with the problem. The first finding in Section 2 appears to' imply that more students need to achieve baccalaureate degrees. We do not believe this is the right answer for many students and for the majority of new jobs. Subsection (8) defines "partnership." The only reference to businesses or business organizations is to private industry councils. We respectfully recommend that this partnership term be broadened to include other organizations of employers established to promote education reform and partnership activities. 179 The term "youth apprenticeship" is not defined in the legislation. It Is referenced In the bill, but the only term that Is actually defined is "registered apprenticeship." This is a critical distinction. If the role of business tn the legislation Is to promote and provide only "registered apprenticeships," there will be serious problems with business participation. I believe strongly that the definitions should be broad enough to contemplate and encourage apprenticeship positions that are not part of the registered apprenticeship system. gectiort_lQ4 (Connecting Activities Component.) This Is a critical activity, and you are correct In highlighting it through a separate section. We recommend that another function of this component is to recruit and support private employers in this initiative. As we have said before, developing and maintaining a strong core of employers will be one of the most difficult tasks in the Implementation of this legislation. Section 202 (State Development Grants.') This section is extraordinarily well done. It properly recognizes all the different players and the roles they need to play. Section 212 (State Implementation Grants.) This section is generally well drafted, but it needs work in two specific areas. First, as noted above, there is little specific reference to "youth apprenticeship" programs. Such programs need much more visibility and encouragement in the legislation. The only reference is to "registered programs" and, again, limiting apprenticeships exclusively to this form will greatly diminish employer interest and participation. Second, this section suggests too small a role for employers. We believe that eligibility for this grant should require a demonstrated commitment from employers th?.! goes far beyond "traditional" roles such as mentoring or career shadowing. PLEASE DO NOT ask too little of employers! Section 302 (Grant to Partnership^ The concept here appears to be good — awarding grants not to states, but directly to partnerships within States. We are fearful, however, tiiat this alternative form of grants might somehow undercut the needed cooperative relationships between the public and private sectors. Perhaps a clear explanation of die differentiation between these two forms of grants will help. Section 302 (WaivcrO Congratulations on this section! It will be critical to make the program effective. Senator Simon. We thank you very, very much for being here. Our hearing stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 77-136 (184) ISBN 0-16-044040-8 78"0"i60"440403 90000